TREATISE 


ON    THE 


AMERICAN  LAW  OF  ADMINISTRATION. 


BY 


J.    G.    WOER]S^ER, 

in  ' 

JUDGE    OF    THE    PROBA  IE    COURT    OF    THE    CITY    OF    ST.    LOUIS. 


IN    TWO    VOLIBIES. 
Vol.  L 


BOSTON: 
LITTLE,  BROWN,  AND   COMPANY. 

1889; 


Vi' 


T 

[U9 


Copijnght,  1889, 

By     J.     G.     WOEKNER. 


SEnibErsttg  Press: 
John  Wilson  and  Son,  CAMBPaDCE. 


PREFACE. 


The  present  treatise  originated  in  the  endeavor  to  qualify 
myself  for  the  office  of  judge  of  probate,  now  more  than  eighteen 
years  ago.  The  study  of  the  statutes  was  found  insufficient. 
Questions  often  arose  in  practice  to  which  they  afforded  no 
adequate  solution.  Obscure  provisions  of  uncertain  application, 
as  well  as  the  omission  to  provide  for  some  cases  of  daily 
occurrence,  not  altogether  remedied  by  interpretation  and  con- 
struction on  the  part  of  courts  of  last  resort,  made  it  necessary 
to  seek  light  elsewhere.  Text-books  by  American  authors,  fur- 
nishing valuable  help  certainly,  served,  on  the  other  hand,  to  cre- 
ate new  perplexity  by  the  widely  differing  constructions  therein 
shown  to  be  put  on  statutes  of  similar  import  in  different  States, 
even  by  courts  of  the  same  State  on  the  same  statute,  and  by  the 
unreconciled  difference  in  the  standpoints  from  which  the  sev- 
eral courts  deduced  the  principles  governing  them  in  their  de- 
cisions. Recourse  to  English  books  presented  a  new  difficulty : 
wliile  to  the  English  practitioner  the  grand  works  of  Jarman  on 
Wills  and  of  Williams  on  Executors  and  Administrators,  consti- 
tuting a  masterly  and  thorough  exposition  of  the  law  governing 
estates  of  deceased  persons,  furnish  a  readily  accessible  and  safe 
guide,  they  are  of  assistance  to  the  American  practitioner  only  in 
so  far  as  he  is  conversant  with  the  departure  from  the  common 
in  the  modern  English  law,  as  well  as  with  the  changes  wrought 
in  the  common  law  by  American  statutes,  usage,  and  policy.  Re- 
liance upon  them  without  continually  remembering  the  bearing 
of  these  changes  is  dangerously  misleading,  and  may  be  looked 
upon  as  accounting,  in  a  large  measure,  for  the  vacillation  and  in- 
consistency so  often  complained  of  as  characterizing  the  decisions 


7401 7.3 


vi  PREFACE. 

of  American  courts.  Late  American  editions  of  these  woi'ks  by 
men  of  more  than  national  reputation  for  learning  and  ability, 
enriched  by  valuable  and  instructive  editorial  notes  and  compre- 
hensive citations  of  American  cases  up  to  the  time  of  publication, 
have  accomplished  much  in  the  way  of  guarding  against  this  dan- 
ger, and  still  constitute  the  most  reliable  books  of  reference  to 
American  judges  and  practitioners,  at  least  in  all  cases  deter- 
mined by  the  common  law,  unaffected  by  English  or  American 
statutes.  Their  influence  is  plainly  discernible  in  the  briefs  and 
arguments  of  counsel  and  the  opinions  of  courts,  althougli  not 
always  expressly  acknowledged,  —  not  alwa3^s,  indeed,  perceived 
by  them.  But  the  heterogeneity  beween  text  and  notes  is  bewil- 
dering to  any  but  a  very  careful  observer,  thoroughly  familiar 
with  the  spirit  at  least  and  the  general  outline  of  the  American 
law  on  the  subject.  Tlie  very  excellence  of  these  treatises  —  the 
close  sequence  of  reasoning  and  symmetry  of  arrangement  which 
place  them  so  high  as  authority  —  serves  to  emphasize  the  in- 
congruity between  the  English  text  and  the  American  notes,  by 
increasing  the  difficulty  of  applying  the  former  to  the  essentially 
different  conditions  presented  by  American  theory  and  practice. 

In  prosecuting  tiiese  studies  I  was  impressed  with  the  force  of 
the  thought,  so  obvious  when  once  suggested,  that,  as  the  stat- 
utes cannot  be  fully  understood  without  the  knowledge  and 
presupposition  of  the  common  law,  constituting  at  once  the  sub- 
stratum upon  which  they  rest  and  a  not  inconsiderable  element 
in  the  enactments  themselves,  so  the  nature  and  extent  of  the 
transformation  brought  about  in  the  common  law  by  engrafting 
upon  it  principles  of  American  growth  become  clearly  apparent 
only  when  considered  in  the  light  of  the  underlying  principles, — 
the  raison  d'etre  of  the  English  as  well  as  of  the  American  law. 
Thus,  in  searching  for  the  reason  of  the  distinction  existmg  in 
both  countries,  though  not  in  both  to  the  same  extent,  between 
courts  intrusted  with  testamentary  jurisdiction  and  those  of 
general  or  plenary  powers,  we  are  led  to  see  that  it  lies  deeper 
than  the  historical  one  at  the  surface, —  the  recognition  of  secular 
authority  in  ecclesiastical  tribunals,  which  Blackstone  character- 
izes as  a  "  peculiarity  "  of  the  British  constitution,  which  earlier 


PREFACE.  Vll 

English  writers  looked  upon  as  an  cncroachiuent  by  tlie  Church, 
and  which  common  law  courts  jealously  resented.  The  origin  of 
distinct  courts  with  probate  powers  in  America  cannot,  certainly, 
be  ascribed  to  such  a  cause,  since  ecclesiastical  tribunals  never 
possessed  secular  i)Owers  in  this  country.  The  reason  is  found 
in  the  nature  of  property,  which  requires  for  its  control,  after  the 
owner's  death,  tribunals  with  functions  different  from  those  of 
courts  adjusting  property  rights  between  litigants  sui  juris. 
Again,  it  is  well  known  that  the  common  law  is  shaped  in  many 
particulars  by  the  feudal  principles  introduced  by  the  Con(picror, 
while  in  America,  at  least  since  the  Revolution,  the  feudal  tenure 
has  never  been  recognized,  and  feudal  theories  are  therefore  in- 
applicable here.  It  is  obvious,  then,  that  property  means  quite  a 
different  thing  at  common  law,  as  modelled  on  feudal  principles, 
from  property  in  the  sense  of  modern  statutes,  whether  English 
or  American,  and  that  the  construction  of  such  a  statute  from 
the  common  law  point  of  view  would  be  liable  to  lead  to  error 
and  inconsistency. 

In  the  following  pages  the  attempt  has  been  made  to  present  the 
American  Law  of  Administration  as  it  appears  when  expounded  in 
the  light  of  the  causes  which  called  it  into  being,  and  contrasted 
with  its  background  of  common  law  traced  to  the  condition  of 
things  from  which  it  originated.  In  the  Introduction  will  be  found 
a  brief  examination  of  the  nature  of  property,  the  principle  of  its 
devolution  on  the  owner's  death,  and  the  officers  and  tribunals 
necessary  to  accomplish  the  devolution.  The  body  of  the  work 
constitutes  the  amplification  in  detail  of  the  principles  deduced 
from  the  nature  of  property  and  the  logical  functions  of  courts. 
The  common  law  as  well  as  the  statutes,  the  decisions  of  courts 
as  well  as  the  rules  which  govern  their  procedure,  not  omitting 
the  reasoning  and  announcements  of  text  writers,  have  all,  so  far 
as  my  ability  allowed,  been  considered  in  the  light  thrown  upon 
them  by  tracing  them,  as  effects,  to  their  causes.  For  the  law, 
which  Blackstonc  demands  to  be  the  perfection  of  human  reason, 
cannot  be  arbitrary  or  capricious  in  its  requirements,  aud  must 
therefore  reflect  some  actual,  real  condition,  which,  when  discov- 
ered, makes  apparent  its  purpose.     Since  the  law  is  necessarily 


Vlll  PREFACE. 

administered  in  the  light  of  antecedent  adjudications,  —  every 
decision  by  a  competent  court  of  last  resort  constituting  thence- 
forth the  law  of  the  land,  as  much  as  the  statute  which  it 
construes,  —  the  treatise  necessarily  deals  with  the  law  as  so 
announced.  To  give  it  value  to  practitioners,  it  must  refer  them 
to  the  source  of  the  law,  whether  a  statute,  the  common  law,  or 
adjudication  by  a  court  of  binding  authority.  Hence  the  nu- 
merous citations  of  text-books,  statutes,  and  decided  cases,  which 
yet  constitute  a  small  proportion  of  the  innumerable  authorities 
which  might  be  cited.  In  the  selection  made  I  was  guided  some- 
what by  my  own  experience,  and  received  valuable  assistance  from 
my  son,  whose  fresh  vigor  and  practical  acquaintance  with  the 
views  and  wants  of  the  bar  served  to  clear  up  doubts  on  many 
controverted  topics.  In  some  few  instances  I  did  not  hesitate  to 
announce  my  own  views  on  points  upon  which  I  could  not  see  the 
logic  of  preponderating  authorities,  but  was  careful,  in  every  such 
case,  to  quote  the  arguments  from  which  I  dissented.  English 
cases  are  referred  to  only  where  American  cases  in  point  have 
not  been  found,  or  to  throw  light  on  points  upon  which  the  latter 
disagree. 

I  offer  the  result  of  my  labors  to  my  brethren  of  the  bench  and 
bar,  mistrusting  that  their  uniform  courtesy  and  kindness  to  me 
personally  may  have  unduly  emboldened  me  to  the  venture ;  be- 
speaking for  the  work  that  indulgence  and  leniency  of  judgment 
which  I  feel  to  be  its  chief  passport  to  public  favor.  But,  I  may 
add,  I  was  sustained  in  the  laborious  task  of  many  years  by  the 
hope  that  it  might,  to  some  slight  extent,  lessen  the  wearying 
work  of  over-burdened  judges,  assist  the  busy  lawyer  in  finding 
the  authorities  decisive  of  a  case  under  examination,  and  furnish 
to  some  of  my  brother  probate  judges  suggestions  not  entirely 
without  value. 

J.  G.  W. 

St.  Louis,  Mo., 

March,  1889. 


CONTENTS. 


Volume  I. 

Page 
TiBLE  OF  Cases  Cited xxxiii 


INTRODUCTION. 

OF   THE  NATUKE   OF   PEOPERTY   AND   THE   PRINCIPLE 
DETERMINING  ITS   DEVOLUTION. 


CHAPTER  I. 

OF   PROPERTY   IN    GENERAL. 

§  1.  The  Acquisition  of  Property 1 

2.  Tenure  and  Use  of  Property ;  its  Loss  by  Non-user 2 

3.  Alienability  of  Property 3 

4.  Operation  of  the  Owner's  Will  after  his  Death 3 

5.  Distinction  between  Rational  and  Capricious  Will 4 

6.  Relation  of  Property  to  the  Taniily 5 

7.  Testamentary  Disposition  of  Property 0 

8.  Succession  of  Property  at  Law 7 

9.  The  Law  as  the  Rational  Will  of  the  Owner 8 

10.  Administration  :  Tunctions  of  Executors  and  Administrators   ....  9 

11.  Functions  of  Courts  controlling  the  Devolution  of  Property     ....  10 

CHAPTER  II. 

OF   THE   DISTINCTION    BETWEEN    RE.\L   AND   PERSONAL   PROPERTY. 

I  12.  Distinction  between  Movable  and  Immovable,  or  Real  and  Personal 

Property 12 

13.  Origin  of  the  Tenure  of  Real  Estate  at  Common  Law 13 

14.  Substantial  Abrogation  of  the  Feudal  Tenure  by  English  Statutes     .     .  14 

15.  The  Devolution  of  Real  Property  to  the  Heir  or  Devisee,  and  of  Per- 

sonal Property  to  the  Administrator  or  Executor 15 

16    Incongruity  of  the  Rule  in  America 16 


CONTENTS. 


TITLE   FIRST. 

OF   THE   DEVOLUTION   OF   PROPEETY   ON   THE  DEATH 
OF   ITS   OWNER. 


PART   FIRST. 

OF  THE  DEVOLUTION  AS  DETERMINED  BY  THE  ACT  OF 
THE  OWNER. 


BOOK    FIRST. 
OF  TESTAMENTARY  DISPOSITION  OF  PROPERTY. 


CHAPTER   TIL 

OF   THE   EXTERNAL   LIMITS   UPON   TESTAMENTARY   CAPACITY. 

Page 

17.  Limitation  of  the  Property  disposable  by  Will 19 

18.  Limitations  npon  Testamentary  Capacity 20 

19.  Incapacity  of  Aliens 22 

20.  Incapacity  of  Infants 23 

21.  Incapacity  of  Married  Women 25 

22.  Incapacity  of  Criminals 28 

CHAPTER   IV. 

INCAPACITY   ARISING   FROM   MENTAL   DISABILITIES. 

23.  Degree  of  Meiital  Vigor  requisite  to  make  a  W^ill 30 

24.  Incapacity  of  Idiots 32 

25.  Incapacity  of  Lunatics 32 

26.  Presumption  of  Sanity,  and  Lucid  Intervals 35 

27.  Presumption  of  Insanity 38 

28.  Competency  of  Witnesses  on  Questions  of  Sanity 40 

29.  Incapacity  from  Imbecility 42 

30.  Incapacity  in  Consequence  of  Force,  Fraud,  or  Intimidation    ....  44 

31.  Incapacity  arising  from  Undue  Influence 45 

32.  Presumption  against  Legacies  to  Fiduciary  Advisers 49 

33.  Presumption  as  to  Seamen's  Wills 50 

34.  Partial  Avoidance  of  Will  by  Undue  Influence 51 

35.  Wills  of  Deaf,  Dumb,  and  Blind  Persons 52 


CONTENTS.  XI 

CHAPTER  V. 

FORM,    EXECUTION,    AND    ATTESTATION    OF   WILLS. 

Page 

§  30.  Absolute  and  Conditioual  Wills 54 

37.  Joint  and  Mutual  Wills 56 

38.  General  Rules  as  to  the  Form  of  Wills 59 

39.  The  Signature 63 

40.  Attestation 66 

41.  Competency  of  Attesting  Witnesses 72 

42.  Wills  valid  as  to  Personal,  but  not  as  to  Real  Property 76 

43.  Holographic  Wills I'i 

44.  Nuncupative  W'ills 79 

45.  Statutory  Regulations  in  respect  of  Nuncupative  Wills 81 

46.  Wills  of  Soldiers  and  Mariners 84 

47.  Codicils 85 

CHAPTER  VI. 

OF   THE   REVOCATION   OF   WILLS. 

§  4S.  Revocation  by  Cancellation,  Obliterating,  Burning,  etc 88 

49.  Partial  Revocation  by  Cancelling,  Obliterating,  etc 93 

50.  Revocation  by  Subsequent  Will 95 

51.  Elfcct  of  Subsequent  upon  Prior  Will 96 

52.  Revival  of  a  Prior  by  the  Revocation  of  a  Later  Will 99 

53.  Revocation  by  Inconsistent  Dis])osition  of  the  Testamentary  Gift  101 

54.  Revocation  by  Marriage 104 

55.  Revocation  by  Marriage  and  Birth  of  Issue  under  English  and  Ameri- 

can Statutes 107 

56.  Republication  of  Wills 112 


BOOK    SECOND. 
OF  GIFTS  EXECUTED  IN  ANTICIPATION  OF  IMMEDIATE  DEATH. 


CHAPTER  YH. 

DONATIONES   MORTIS   CAUSA, 

§57.  Origin  and  Nature  of  Gifts  J/o;-/fw  Cc/ws^ 115 

53.  Deiiuitions  of  the  Term 117 

59.  By  whom,  to  whom,  and  of  what  a  Donatio  Mortis  Causa  may  be  made  117 

00.  Apprehension  of  Death 120 

61.  Delivery  of  the  Thing  Given 121 

62.  Revocability  of  Gifts  Mortis  Causa 125 

63.  Liability  of  Gifts  Mortis  Causa  to  Creditors  of  the  Donor      ....  126 


xii  CONTENTS. 

PART   SECOND. 

or  THE  DEVOLUTION  BY  OPERATION  OE  LAW. 


CHAPTER   VIII. 

DESCENT   AND    DISTRIBUTION    OF   PROPERTY   OF   INTESTATES. 

Page 

64.  Nature  and  Origin  of  the  Rules  of  Descent  and  Distribution  .     .     .     .  130 

65.  Rights  of  Children 132 

6G.  The  Surviving  Husband  as  Heir 133 

67.  The  Widow  as  Heiress 134 

68.  The  Father  as  Heir 137 

69.  The  Mother  as  Heiress 139 

70.  Brothers  and  Sisters :  Heirs  of  the  Full  and  of  the  Half  Blood  ...  141 

71.  Descendants  taking  by  Representation 146 

72.  Computation  of  the  Next  of  Kin 150 

73.  Devolution  of  Ancestral  Estates 153 

74.  Posthumous  Children 154 

75.  Illegitimate  Children 156 

76.  Aliens 159 

CHAPTER  IX. 

PROVISIONAL   ALIMONY    OF   THE   FAMILY. 

(  77.  Nature  and  Office  of  Statutory  Allowances  for  the  Provisional  Support 

of  the  Family 160 

78.  Statutory  Provisions  touching  the  Extent  and  Mode  of  the  Allowance  .  162 

79.  Rules  governing  the  Amount  of  the  Allowance 164 

SO.  To  what  extent  Liberality  should  govern  the  Court 166 

81.  Cases  illustrative  of  the  Amount  of  the  Allowance 168 

82.  The  Allowance  in  Testate  Estates 170 

83.  The  Allowance  with  regard  to  the  Solvency  or  Insolvency  of  the  Estate  172 

84.  How  affected  by  Marriage  Settlements 173 

85.  How  affected  by  Liens  or  Preferred  Debts 175 

86.  When  the  Allowance  takes  Effect 177 

87.  Separate  Property  of  the  Widow  affecting  the  Allowance 178 

88.  What  constitutes  a  Family 180 

89.  Allowance  to  the  Widow  alone 182 

90.  Allowance  to  the  Children  alone 185 

91.  Out  of  what  Property  to  be  allowed 186 

92.  Time  and  Procedure  to  obtain  tlie  Allowance 188 

93.  Additional  Allowances •  191 


CONTENTS.  XUl 

CHAPTER   X. 

EXEMPTION   OF   THE    HOMESTEAD, 

Page 

§  94;.  Nature  of  the  liomestead  Right  of  the  Surviving  family      ....  I'Ji 

95.  What  Tenement  constitutes  the  Homestead  descending 198 

96.  Homestead  Rights  of  the  Widow 202 

97.  The  Homestead  as  alfected  by  Dower 205 

98.  The  Widow's  Right  to  sell  tiic  Homestead 206 

99.  Homestead  Rights  of  Minor  Children 207 

100.  Homestead  Rights  as  affected  by  Incumbrances 209 

101.  Homestead  Rights  as  affected  by  Inconsistent  Disposition  of  the  Es- 

tate by  the  Deceased  Owner 212 

102.  Homestead  Rights  as  affected  by  Administration 213 

103.  Procedure  in  Probate  Courts  in  setting  out  Homestead 215 

104.  The  Rights  and  Burdens  connected  with  the  Enjoyment  of  the  Home- 

stead    216 

CHAPTER  XL 

ESTATES   OF   DOWER   AND    CURTESY. 

§105.  Nature  and  Purpose  of  Dower 218 

lOG.  Dower  under  the  Statutes  of  the  several  States 219 

107.  Marriage  as  a  Requisite  to  Dower 222 

108.  Alienage  as  Barring  the  Dower  Right 225 

109.  Misconduct  of  the  Wife  as  a  Bar  to  her  Dower 226 

110.  What  Property  is  subject  to  Dower 229 

111.  The  Estate  or  Interest  in  Property  necessary  to  support  Dower    .     .  231 

112.  Inchoate  Dower 241 

113.  Dower  as  affected  by  Acts  of  the  Husbaud 244 

114.  The  Wife's  Relinquishment  of  Dower 248 

115.  Dower  Consummate  before  Assignment 253 

116.  Quarantine  of  Dower 255 

117.  Assignment  of  Dower 258 

118.  Ante-Nuptial  Contracts  as  affecting  Dower 263 

119.  Election  between  Dower  and  Devise 266 

120.  Dower  as  affected  by  the  Statute  of  Limitations,  and  by  Estoppel  .     .  273 

121.  Estate  by  the  Curtesy 275 

122.  Community  Property 277 

CHAPTER   Xn. 

ESTATES   OF   DECEASED   PARTNERS. 

§  123.  Dissolution  of  the  Partnership  by  the  Death  of  one  of  its  Members    .  281 

124.  Powers  and  Liabilities  of  Surviving  Partners 283 

125.  Remedies  of  Partnership  Creditors  in  Equity 286 


Xiv  CONTENTS. 

Page 

§  126.  EfFect  of  Dissolution  on  rartnership  Real  Estate 288 

127.  Distribution  of  rartnership  Effects       . 290 

128.  Jurisdiction  of  Probate  Courts  over  Partnership  Estates       ....  294 

129.  History  of  the  Missouri  Statute  giving  Jurisdiction  over  Partnership 

Estates 297 

130.  Power  of  Probate  Courts  to  require  Bond 300 


CHAPTER  XIII. 

ESCHEATS. 

131.  Devolution  of  Property  in  Default  of  Heirs 302 

132.  Escheat  at  Common  Law 302 

133.  Escheats  under  tlie  Statutes  of  the  several  States 304 

134.  Nature  of  the  Title  by  which  the  State  holds  Escheats 308 

135.  Administration  of  Escheated  Estates 310 


TITLE   SECOm). 

OF   THE   INSTKUMENTALITIES   EFFECTING  THE 
DEVOLUTION. 

§  136.  Tribunals  and  OfEcers  employed  by  the  Law  to  accomplish  the  Devo- 
lution  312 


PART   FIRST. 

OF  THE  TRIBUNALS  CONTROLLING   THE   ADMINISTRATION   OF 
THE  ESTATES  OF  DECEASED  PERSONS. 


CHAPTER   XIV. 

PROBATE   POWERS   AS   EXISTING    AT    COMMON    LAW   AND    UNDER 
ENGLISH    STATUTES. 

137.  Origin  of  the  Ecclesiastical  Jurisdiction  over  the  Probate  of  Wills      .  313 

138.  Origin  of  Administration  in  England 315 

139.  Powers  of  Ecclesiastical  Courts  in  England  ......••  316 

140.  Probate  Jurisdiction  in  other  Englisli  Courts 318 


CONTENTS.  XV 

CHAPTER  XV. 

NATURE   OF   PROBATE   COURTS   IN    AMERICA. 

Page 

§111.  Origin  of  Probate  Courts  iu  America 321 

142.  American  Statutes  the  ouly  Source  of  Probate  Powers  in  the  States  .  322 

143.  Their  Dignity  as  Courts 324 

144.  Their  Powers  as  Judicial  Tribunals 326 

145.  Conclusiveness  of  their  Judgments  in  Collateral  Proceedings    .     .     .  327 

146.  How  far  Probate  Courts  may  correct  their  Judgments 331 

147.  Entering  Judgment  Ntinc  'pro  Tunc 333 

148.  Proceeding  in  Rem  and  in  Personam 337 

149.  Method  of  Procedure  in  Probate  Courts 339 


CHAPTER   XYI. 

OF   THE   SUBJECT   MATTER   WITHIN   THE   JURISDICTION   OF   PROBATE 

COURTS. 

150.  Scope  of  the  Jurisdiction 343 

151.  Jurisdiction  as  limited  to  the  Devolution  of  Property  on  the  Owner's 

Death 344 

152.  Liabilities  arising  from  the  Administration 347 

153.  Adjudication  of  Claims  against  the  Deceased 348 

154.  Incidental  Powers  conferred  by  necessai-y  Implication 349 

155.  Power  to  construe  Wills 351 

156.  Conclusive  and  Concurrent  Jurisdiction 355 


CHAPTER  XVn. 

DOMICILIAR   AND   ANCILLARY   JURISDICTION. 

§  157.  Authority  of  Representatives  limited  to  the  State  granting  it         .     .  358 

158.  Administration  of  the  same  Successions  in  different  Countries  .     .     .  359 

159.  Jurisdiction  of  Property  removed  to  another  Country  after  Owner's 

Death 3G1 

160.  Legal  Status  of  Foreign  Administrators 362 

161.  Validity  of  voluntary  Payment  to  Foreign  Administrator      ....  364 

162.  Extra-territorial  Validity  of  Title  once  vested 366 

163.  Statutory  Authority  of  Foreign  Executors  and  Administrators       .     .  368 

164.  Liabilities  of  Foreign  Administrators 370 

165.  Probate  Jurisdiction  affected  by  Change  of  Government 372 

166.  Procedure  governed  by  the  Law  of  the  Forum 374 

167.  Payment  of  Debts  and  Distribution  to  Non-Residents 375 

168.  Real  Estate  governed  by  the  Z^'j  Zo«  .S^/ <S'<V<? 378 

169.  Provisional  Alimony  of  Widow  and  Minor  Children 379 


xvi  CONTENTS. 

PART   SECOND. 

OF  THE  OFFICE  OF  EXECUTORS  AND  ADMINISTRATORS. 


CHAPTER   XVIII. 

NATURE   OF    THE  TITLE  VESTING  IN  EXECUTORS   AND   ADMINISTRATORS. 


§170.  Conduit  of  the  luheritauce 381 

171-  Distiuction  between  Executors  and  Administrators 382 

172.  When  the  Title  vests  in  the  Executor,  and  when  in  the  Administrator  383 

173.  Relation  of  the  Appointment  to  the  Time  of  the  Testator's  or  Intes- 

tate's Death 385 

174.  Title  of  Executors  and  Administrators  in  Auter  Droit 386 

175.  Power  of  Alienation 387 

176.  Other  Methods  of  Conversion 388 

177.  Property  in  Auter  Droit  distinguished  from  Property  in  Jure  Propria  389 

CHAPTER  XIX. 

OF   SPECIAL   AND    QUALIFIED    ADMINISTRATORS. 

§  178.  Administrators  cum  Testamento  annexo 392 

179.  Administrators  de  Bonis  non 393 

180.  Public  Administrators .  395 

181.  k^\x\\vi\s,ixdA.ov^  pendente  Lite 400 

182.  Administrators  durante  Minore  Mtate 403 

183.  Administrators  durante  Absentia 404 

184.  Other  Temporary  and  Limited  Administrators 405 


TITLE   THIRD. 

OF  THE  DEVOLUTION  TO  THE  LEGAL  KEPRESENTATIVES. 


PART    FIRST. 

OF  THE  ESTATE  WITHOUT  OFFICIAL   REPRESENTATION. 


CHAPTER    XX. 

WHAT   MAY   BE   DONE   BEFORE   PROBATE   OR   GRANT   OF  LETTERS. 

185.  To  whom  the  Real  and  to  whom  the  Personal  Property  descends  .     .     408 

186.  Authority  of  Executors  before  Grant  of  Letters  Testamentary  .     .     .     410 

187.  Authority  of  Administrators  before  Grant  of  Letters 411 


CONTENTS.  XVll 

CHAPTER   XXI. 

OF    EXECUTORS   DE   SON   TORT. 

Page 

§  188.  Definition 4i:i 

189.  Acts  which  create  the  Li.ability       415 

190.  Status  of  the  Person,  and  other  Circumstances  fixing  the  Liability     .  41G 

191.  Acts  of  Intermeddling  which  do  not  create  the  Liability 413 

192.  Coe.vistence  of  Executor  or  Administrator  de  Jure  and  de  son  Tort     .  419 

193.  Nature  of  the  LiabiHty  of  Executors  f/<?  *wi  Tbr^ 420 

191.  Extent  of  their  Liability  to  Creditors 422 

195.  Liability  to  the  rightful  Executor  or  Administrator 424 

196.  Effect  of  the  Appointment  of  Executor  de  son  Tort  upon  his  previous 

.    Tortious  Acts       425 

197.  Validity  of  the  Title  acquired  from  an  Executor  de  son  Tort      .     .     .  426 

198.  Application  of  the  Doctrine  in  America 427 

CHAPTER   XXn. 

OF   THE   NECESSITY    OF   OFFICIAL   ADMINISTRATION. 

§  199.  Why  Administration  is  necessary 430 

200.  Cases  holding  Administration  necessary 431 

201.  Exceptions  permitted  in  some  States 433 

203.  Residuary  or  Sole  Legatees  taking  Estates  without  Administration     .  434 

203.  Administration  in  Louisiana 436 


PART   SECOND. 

OF  THE  INDUCTION  TO  THE  OFFICE  OF  EXECUTOR  AND 
ADMINISTRATOR. 


CHAPTER   XXni. 

OF    THE    PRELIMINARIES    TO    THE    GRANT   OF    LETTERS    TESTAMENTARY 
AND    OF   ADMINISTRATION. 

§  20 1.  Local  Jurisdiction  to  gi-ant  Letters  Testamentary  and  of  Administration  438 

205.  Jurisdiction  over  Estates  of  deceased  Non-Residents 440 

20").  What  constitutes  Domicil  or  Residence 442 

207.  Proof  of  Death    .          443 

208.  Administration  of  the  Estates  of  Living  Persons 447 

209.  Reasons  for  the  Invalidity  of  such  Administration 449 

210.  Cases  holding  Administration  on  Estates  of  Living  Persons  valid       .  452 

211.  Conclusiveness  of  Judgments 455 

212.  Administration  of  the  Estates  of  Absent  Persons 459 

213.  Administration  of  the  Estates  of  Persons  civilly  dead 462 

VOL.  I.  — b 


xviu  CONTENTS. 

CHAPTER   XXIY. 

OF  THE  PROBATE  OP  THE  WILL. 

Page 

§214.  Production  of  the  Will  for  Probate 464 

215.  Validity  of  Probate  in  Probate  Courts 467 

216.  Method  of  Proof  in  Common  Form 470 

217.  The  Probate  in  Solemn  Form 472 

218.  Proof  when  the  Testimony  of  Subscribing  Witnesses  cannot  be  obtained  474 

219.  Witnesses  disqualified  by  Interest 476 

220.  Proof  of  the  Testator's  Sanity 478 

221.  Proof  of  Lost  Wills 480 

222.  Probate  of  Wills  in  Part  and  in  Fae  Simile 484 

223.  Probate  of  Holographic  Wills 487 

224.  Proof  of  Nuncupative  Wills 489 

225.  Admissibility  of  Declarations  as  Evidence  on  Probate  of  Wills       .     .  489 

226.  Wills  proved  in  a  Foreign  Jurisdiction 491 

227.  Revocation  of  Probate 496 

228.  Effect  of  the  Probate 501 

CHAPTER   XXV. 

OF  THE  GRANT  OF  LETTERS  TESTAMENTARY. 

§  229.  How  the  Executor  is  constituted 503 

230.  Residence  as  a  Qualification  to  the  Office  of  Executor 505 

231.  Infancy  as  a  Disqualification 506 

232.  Coverture  as  a  Disqualification 506 

233    Mental  Incapacity,  Immorality,  and  other  Disqualifications  ....  507 

234.  Acceptance  or  Refusal  of  the  Office  of  Executor 510 

CHAPTER  XXVI. 

LETTERS  OF    ADMINISTRATION. 

§  235.  Principles  governing  the  Grant  of  Letters  of  Administration    .     .     .  515 

236.  The  Husband's  Right  to  Appointment 517 

237.  The  Widow's  Right  to  Appointment 519 

238.  Right  of  Next  of  Kin  to  Appointment 521 

239.  Right  of  Creditors  to  Appointment 522 

240.  Right  of  the  Public  Administrator 523 

241.  Disqualifications  excluding  from  the  Right  to  Appointment  ....  524 

242.  Considerations  governing  the  Discretion 527 

243    Renunciation  of  the  Right  to  administer 530 

244.  Effect  of  Renunciation  or  Waiver        532 

245.  Administrators  cum  Testamento  annexo 534 

246.  Administrators  of  Estates  of  Non-Residents 536 

247.  Administrators  de  Bonis  non 537 

248.  Administrators  with  Limited  Powers 538 


CONTENTS.  XIX 

CHAPTER   XXVII. 

OF   THE    ADMINISTRATION    BOND. 

Page 

249.  Origin  of  the  Law  requiring  Ad  ministration  Bonds 540 

250.  Bonds  of  Executors 541 

251.  Power  of  Court  to  order  Bond 543 

252.  Cireuinstanccs  rendering  Bond  necessary 543 

253.  Invalidity  of  Administration  without  Boud 545 

254.  When  Additional  Bond  may  be  ordered 54') 

255.  Liabihty  of  Sureties,  and  EflFect  of  New  Bonds 547 

256.  Technical  Execution  of  the  Bond '  552 

257.  Amount  of  the  Penalty 555 

258.  Joint  or  Separate  Bonds 557 

259.  Approval  and  Custody  of  Bonds 559 

260.  Special  Bonds 560 


CHAPTER   XXVIII. 

OF    THE     PROCEDURE    IN    OBTAINING    LETTERS    AND     QUALIFYING  FOR 

THE   OFFICE. 

§  261.  The  Petition  for  the  Grunt  of  Letters  Testamentary  or  of  Administra- 
tion        561 

262.  Notice  to  Parties  entitled  to  Administer 563 

263.  Nature  of  the  Proceeding 565 

264.  Nature  of  the  Decree,  and  its  Authentication 565 

265.  Oath  of  Office 567 


CHAPTER  XXIX. 

OF   THE   REVOCATION   OF   LETTERS   TESTAMENTARY   AND   OF 
ADMINISTRATION. 

266.  Conclusiveness  of  the  Decree  or  Order  granting  Letters      ....  568 

267.  Jurisdiction  to  revoke  Letters 569 

268.  llccall  of  Letters  granted  without  Authority  in  the  Court    ....  570 

269.  Theory  of  Removal  for  Cause 572 

270.  Causes  justifying  Revocation  of  Letters 575 

271.  What  deemed  insufficient  to  justify  Revocation 577 

272.  Who  may  move  for  Revocation 580 

273.  Resignation  of  Executors  and  Administrators 582 

274.  Consequences  of  the  Revocation  of  Letters 584 


XX  CONTENTS. 

PART   THIRD. 

OF  THE  PROPERTY  TO  WHICH  THE  TPrLE  OF  EXECUTORS  AND 
ADMINISTRATORS  EXTENDS. 


CHAPTER   XXX. 

OF   PROPERTY   IN   POSSESSION. 

Page 

§  275.  Joint  and  Partnership  Property 592 

276.  Real  Estate 592 

277.  Chattels  Real 593 

278.  Chattels  Real  of  the  Wife 594 

279.  Mortgages 595 

280.  Chattels  Animate 596 

281.  Chattels  Vegetable 597 

282.  Emblements 598 

283.  Fixtures,  as  between  the  Heir  and  the  Personal  Representative     .     .  600 

284.  Modern  Statement  of  the  Rule        602 

285.  Fixtures,  as  between  Personal  Representatives  of  Life  Tenant  and 

Remainderman 605 

286.  Separate  Property  of  the  Wife 606 

287-  Ante-nuptial  and  Post-nuptial  Settlements 608 

288.  The  Wife's  Savings  from  Separate  Trade,  Pin-money,  Gifts,  etc.    .     .  611 

289.  The  Wife's  Paraphernalia 613 

CHAPTER   XXXI. 

TITLE  OF  EXECUTORS  AND   ADMINISTRATORS  TO   CHOSES   IN   ACTION. 

§290.  Survival  of  Actions  at  Common  Law 615 

291.  Reason  of  the  Rule 616 

292.  American  Statutes  regulating  the  Survival  of  Actions 618 

293.  Actions  for  Injuries  to  Property 620 

294.  Actions  for  Injuries  to  the  Person 622 

295.  Actions  for  Injuries  resulting  in  Death 626 

296.  Property  conveyed  by  Decedent  in  Fraud  of  Creditors 630 

297.  Annuities  and  Rent  Charges 633 

298.  Apprentices  and  Sen'ants 633 

299.  Copyi-ights  and  Patents 634 

300.  Rents 636 

301.  Apportionment  between  Life  Tenant  and  Remainderman      ....  637 

302.  The  Wife's  Choses  in  Action 638 

303.  Actions  accruing  to  the  Personal  Representative 643 


CONTENTS.  XXI 

Volume  II. 

TITLE   FOURTH. 

OF  THE  DUTIES   OF  THE   PERSONAL   REPRESENTATIVE 
IN   RESPECT   OF   THE  ESTATE. 


PART   FIRST. 

OF  ACQUIRING   POSSESSION  OF  THE  ESTATE. 


CHAPTER   XXXII. 

WHAT   CONSTITUTES   ASSETS.  Pa^g 

§  304.  When  Property  becomes  Assets 644 

305.  Meaning  of  the  Term  Assets 644 

306.  Assets  not  possessed  by  the  Decedent 646 

307.  Accretions,  Interest,  Rents,  Profits 647 

30S.  Property  in  Foreign  Jurisdiction 648 

309.  Debts  are  Assets  wliere  Debtor  resides 650 

310.  Property  lost  through  Administrator's  Negligence  as  Assets     .     .     .  651 

311.  Debts  of  Executors  or  Administrators  as  Assets 65-2 

312.  Property  in  Aider  Droit  not  Assets 655 

313.  Legal  and  Equitable  Assets 656 

314.  Personal  and  Real  Assets 658 

CHAPTER    XXXIII. 

OF   THE   INVENTORY   AND   APPRAISAL. 

§  315.  Office  and  Necessity  of  the  Inventory 660 

316.  Within  what  Time  the  Inventory  must  be  filed 661 

317.  What  Property  must  be  inventoried 664 

318.  Details  of  the  Inventory 667 

319.  Indication  of  the  Value  of  Assets 668 

320.  Appraisement  of  the  Goods 669 

CHAPTER  XXXIV. 

DUTIES   OF   EXECUTORS    AND    ADMINISTRATORS    IN    TAKING    CHARGE   OF 

THE   ESTATE. 

§321.  Duties  of  Administrators  to  take  Estate  into  Possession 672 

322.  Right  of  Administrator  paramount  to  the  Heir  or  Legatee   ....  674 

323.  Tlicir  Duty  to  prosecute  and  defend  Actions  surviving  to  or  against 

the  Personal  Representative 675 

324.  Actions  to  recover  the  Estat« 677 

325.  Summary  Proceedings  to  recover  Assets 679 


XXU  CONTENTS. 

PART   SECOND. 

OF  THE  MANAGEMENT  OF  THE  ESTATE. 


CHAPTER   XXXV. 

OF   THE    DUTIES   OF   EXECUTORS   AND    ADMINISTRATORS   IN   RESPECT  OP 
PERSONAL   PROPERTY. 

Page 

§  326.  Compoundiug  with  Debtors 6b3 

327.  Arbitration 685 

328.  Duties  in  Relation  to  the  Contracts  and  Trade  of  the  Deceased     .     .  686 

329.  Preserving  the  Property 690 

330.  Sale  of  Perishable  Property 691 

331.  Transfer  of  Property  by  the  Executor  or  Administrator 692 

332.  Method  and  Notice  of  Sale 695 

333.  Terms  and  Method  of  Payment 697 

334.  Purchase  by  the  Executor  or  Admiuistrutur  himself 700 

335.  Record  and  Report  of  the  Sale 703 

336.  Duties  in  Respect  of  the  Investment  and  Custody  of  Funds       .     .     .  704 

CHAPTER   XXXVI. 

OP   THE   MANAGEMENT  OF  THE   REAL   ESTATE. 

§  337.  States  in  which  the  Real  Estate  goes  to  the  Executor  or  Administrator  712 

338.  Interest  of  the  Executor  or  Administrator  in  Real  Estate     ....  715 

339.  Power  over  Real  Estate  conferred  by  Will 716 

340.  Power  given  in  a  Will  not  following  the  Office  of  the  Executor      .     .  719 

341.  Statutes  regulating  the  Power  over  Real  Estate  conferred  by  Will     .  721 

342.  Constructive  or  Equitable  Conversion 726 

343.  Powers  vested  in  Devisee  of  a  Life  Estate 728 

344.  Duties  and  Liabilities  arising  to  Executors  and   Administrators  in 

Respect  of  Real  Estate 730 

34.5.  Power  to  mortgage  the  Real  Estate 731 


PART   THIRD. 

OF  THE  PRIVITY  AMONG  EXECUTORS  OR  ADMINISTRATORS  OF 
THE  SAME  ESTATE. 


CHAPTER   XXXVII. 

UNITY   OF   ESTATE   AMONG    EXECUTORS    AND    ADMINISTRATORS    OF   THE 

SAME    DECEDENT. 

§  346,  Power  of  Co-executors  to  bind  each  other  by  Acts  of  Administration      733 
347.  Acknowledging  or  Promising  to  Pay  a  Debt  by  one  of  several  Execu- 
tors or  Administrators 735 


CONTENTS.  XXUl 

§  313.  The  Liability  of  one  Co-executor  or  Co-administrator  for  the  Acts  ol' 

another '"^' 

349.  Remedies  in  Trotcctiou  of  Co-admiuistrators  against  Liability  for  one 

another's  acts '"^"^ 

350.  Executor's  Executor  representing  the  Executor's  Testator  ....  741 

351.  Succession  iu  the  Administration 743 

352.  Administrators  de  Bonis  no/i  under  American  Statutes 740 

353.  Privity  between  Successive  Administrators 750 

354.  Privity  between  Special  and  General  Administrators 752 


TITLE    FIFTH. 

OF  THE   PAYMENT   OF   DEBTS   BY   EXECUTORS   AND 
ADMINISTPvATOPvS. 

§  355.  Origin  of  the  Common  Law  System  of  Paying  Debts  of  Deceased 

Persons ^^^ 


PART   FIRST. 

OF  THE  PRIORITY  OF  DEMANDS  AGAINST  THE  ESTATES  OF 
DECEASED   PERSONS. 

§  356.  Distinction  between  the  Debts  of  the  Decedent,  and  Liabilities  con- 
tracted by  the  Personal  Representative 756 


CHAPTER   XXXVm. 

OF   THE   PAYxMEXT    OF   LIABILITIES   ARISING    AFTER   THE    DEATH    OF 
THE    DECEDENT. 

§  357.  Funeral  Expenses  allowable  as  Incidental  to  the  Administration     .     .  759 

358.  What  constitutes  Funeral  Expenses 760 

359.  Extent  of  Allowance  for  Funeral  Expenses  out  of  Insolvent  Estates  .  763 

360.  Extent  of  Allowance  in  Solvent  Estates 764 

361.  Expenses  of  Last  Illness  when  preferred  to  Debts 765 

362.  Expenses  necessary  in  the  Administration  of  the  Estate 766 

363.  Provisional  Alimony  for  the  Surviving  Family 767 

CHAPTER   XXXIX. 

OF   THE   PRIORITY   OF    DEBTS   CREATED   BY   THE   DECEDENT. 

§  364.  Priority  of  Debts  at  Common  Law 769 

365.  Expenses  of  Funeral  and  Last  Illness  as  Debts »     ■  770 

366.  Debts  to  the  Government  of  the  United  States 771 

367.  Debts  to  the  State  and  State  Corporations 772 


xxiv  CONTENTS. 

Page 

§368.  Debts  owing  ill  a  Fiduciary  Capacity 17 -i 

369.  Judgments  against  the  Decedent  iu  his  Lifetime 774 

370.  Recognizances,  Mortgages,  and  Obligations  of  Record 778 

371.  Debts  by  Specialty       778 

372.  Rent ■  77!> 

373.  Wages 77'.) 

374.  Simple  Contract  Debts 780 


PART   SECOND. 

OF  THE  COMMON  LAW   SYSTEM  OF  PAYING  DEBTS  OF 
DECEASED   PERSONS. 

§  375.  Payment  of  Debts  according  to  their  Priority 783 


CHAPTER   XL. 

OP  THE  PAYMENT  OP  DEBTS  AT  COMMON  LAW. 

376.  Preference  among  Creditors  of  equal  Degree 785 

377.  Right  of  Retainer  at  Common  Law 786 

378.  Application  of  the  Doctrine  of  Retainer  to  the  several  Classes  of  Ad- 

ministrators      787 

379.  Consequence  of  Paying  Legatee  before  Notice  of  Debt 789 

380.  Defences  against  Actions  for  Debts  of  the  Deceased 791 

381.  Effect  of  Admissions  and  Promises  by  the  Administrator      ....  794 

382.  Enforcing  Judgments  de  Bonis  Testatoris  at  Common  Law  ....  796 

383.  Liability  of  Executors  and  Administrators  in  Equity 798 


PART   THIRD. 

OF    THE    SYSTEM    OF    PAYING    DEBTS    OF    DECEASED    PERSONS 
UNDER  AMERICAN   STATUTES. 

§  384.  Contrast  between  Common  Law  and  American  System 800 

385.  Notice  to  Creditors  of  the  Grant  of  Letters 801 


CHAPTER   XLI. 

OF   THE   EXHIBITION    OF   CLAIMS   TO,   AND   THEIR   ALLOWANCE   BY,  THE 
EXECUTOR   OR    ADMINISTRATOR. 

§  386.  Creditors  required  to  exhibit  Claims 803 

387.  What  constitutes  a  sufficient  Exhibition 804 

388.  Time  for  the  Exhibition  of  Claims 806 

389.  Affidavit  of  Creditors  necessary 808 

390.  Allowance  or  Rejection  of  Claims  by  the  Administrator 810 


CONTENTS.  XXV 

CHAPTER    XLII. 

OF  ESTABLISHING    CLAIMS    AGAINST   THE  ESTATES   OF    DECEASED 

PERSONS. 

Page 
§  301.  When  Claims  may  be  established  in  Probate  Court 81o 

392.  What  Demands  and  Defences  arc  triable  in  Probate  Courts       •     .     .     815 

393.  Claims  not  matured 817 

39i.  Contingent  Claims 818 

395.  Claims  of  Executors  and  Administrators 820 

396.  Claims  by  Relatives  of  the  Deceased 822 

397.  Notice  to  the  Administrator  of  Claims  to  be  established 82.'5 

398.  Set-offs  in  Probate  Courts,  and  Parties  as  Witnesses 827 

CHAPTER   XLIII. 

OF   THE    TIME    WITHIN   WHICH    CLAIMS   MUST   BE   ESTABLISHED. 

§  399.  Time  of  establishing  Claims  with  Reference  to  their  Rejection  by  the 

Administrator S38 

400.  Special  Limitation  of  Time  to  establisli  Claims  against  Estates  .     .     .     839 

401.  Application  of  the  General  Statute  of  Limitations  to  Executors  and 

Administrators 843 

402.  Application  of  the  Statute  of  Nou-Claim,  or  Special  Limitation      .     .     845 

403.  Effect  of  Proving  Claims  after  the  Time  fixed  therefor  by  Statute  .     .     848 

CHAPTER   XLIV. 

OF   CLAIMS   AGAINST   INSOLVENT  ESTATES. 

§  404.   How  Estates  are  declared  Lisolvent 851 

405.  Special  Administration  of  Insolvent  Estates 853 

40fi.  Procedure  in  establishing  Claims  against  Insolvent  Estates  ....     856 

407.  Time  within  which  Claims  must  be  presented  against  Insolvent  Estates  856 

408.  Riglits  of  Creditors  holding  Collateral  Security  to  Assets  of  Insolvent 

Estates 859 

409.  Actions  to  foreclose  Collateral  Securities 860 

CHAPTER   XLV. 

OF    THE    PAYMENT    OF    DEBTS   WHEN    ESTABLISHED. 

§  410.  Nature  and  Effect  of  the  Allowance  or  Judgment  establishing  Claims    802 

411.  The  Order  or  Decree  to  pay  Debts 86 1 

412.  Enforcement  of  the  Order  or  Decree  to  pay  Debts 865 


XXvi  CONTENTS. 


TITLE   SIXTH. 

OF   LEGACIES   AND   DEVISES. 

Page 

413.  Legacies  and  Devises 868 


PART    FIRST. 

OF  ASCERTAINING  TEE  MEANING  OF  WILLS. 


CHAPTER   XL  VI. 

OF   THE   GENERAL  RULES    APPLIED    IN    EXPOUNDING   WILLS. 

414.  Ascertaiuing  the  Testator's  Intention 870 

415.  Rule  requiring  the  several  Parts  of  a  Will  to  be  construed  together. 

Precatory  Words 873 

416.  General  Intent  controlling  the  Particular  Intent 877 

417.  Rule  allowing  Words  and  Limitations  to  be  Transposed,  Supplied,  or 

Rejected 879 

418.  Testator's  Intention  viewed  in  the  Light  of  Policy  of  the  Law  .     .     .  882 

419.  From  what  Period  the  Will  speaks  in  Respect    of  the  Law  govern- 

ing it 885 

420.  From  what  Period  the  Will  speaks  in  Respect  of  the  Testator's  In- 

tention . 888 

421.  Extrinsic  Evidence  in  Aid  of  Construction 891 

422.  Testamentary  Donees  as  Classes •     .  895 

423.  Classes  designated  by  Technical  Terms 899 

CHAPTER   XL  VII. 

TESTAMENTARY   DISPOSITIONS    CONTROLLED    BY   PUBLIC    POLICY. 

I  424.  Gifts  for  Immoral  or  Superstitious  Purposes 907 

425.  Gifts  prohibited  by  the  Statute  of  Mortmain 909 

426.  Corporations  as  Testamentary  JDonees 911 

427.  Rule  against  Perpetuities 914 

428.  Accumulation  of  the  Income 917 

429.  Gifts  to  Charitable  Uses 919 

430.  What  constitutes  a  Charitable  Gift  in  the  Legal  Sense 925 

431.  Validity  of  the  English  Statute  of  Charitable  Uses  in  America  .     .     .  928 

432.  The  Doctrine  of  Cy  Pres 929 

433.  Gifts  of  Benevolence  or  Private  Charity 932 


CONTENTS.  XXvil 


PART    SECOND. 

OF  CARRYING  WILLS  INTO  EFFECT. 


CHAPTER   XLVIII. 

LEGAL   INCIDENTS   AFFECTING   DEVISES   AND   LEGACIES. 

Page 
§  i3i.  Lapse  of  Tcstameutary  Gifts  by  the  Death  of  the  Donee  before  that 

of  the  Testator 933 

435.  Statutory   Exceptions    in    Favor  of    Representatives  of  Deceased 

Legatees 938 

436.  The  Doctrine  of  Lapse  as  affected  by  the  Contingent  or  Vested  Cliar- 

acter  of  the  Devise  or  Legacy 941 

437.  Devolution  of  Void  and  Lapsed  Devises  and  Legacies 943 

438.  The  Devolution  of  Void  and  Lapsed  Devises  and  Legacies  as  affected 

by  Statutes 945 

439.  Remainders,  and  Executory  Devises  and  Bequests 947 

440.  Devises  and  Legacies  on  Condition 951 

441.  Repugnant  Conditions 954 

442.  Conditions  obnoxious  to  Public  Policy 957 

443.  Conditions  in  Restraint  of  Marriage 960 

444.  Classification  of  Legacies 964 

445.  Cumulative,  Repeated,  and  Substituted  Legacies 9G9 

446.  Ademption  and  Satisfaction  of  Legacies  by  Act  of  the  Testator      .     .  972 
447-  Legacies  in  Satisfsiction  of  Debts 974 

448.  Ademption  of  Legacies  given  as  Portions 977 

449.  Admissibility  of  Parol  Evidence  on  Questions  of  Ademption      .     .     .     979 

450.  Statutory  Provisions  affecting  Ademption  or  Satisfaction  of  Legacies      982 

CHAPTER   XLIX. 

OP   THE   SATISFACTION   OF   LEGACIES   BY   THE   EXECUTOR. 

§451.  Preference  of  Creditors  over  Legatees 984 

452.  Order  in  which  Legacies  abate 985 

453.  Executor's  Assent  to  Devises  and  Legacies 990 

454.  Time  for  Paying  or  Delivering  Legacies 99 1 

455.  Time  for  Paying  Legacies  fixed  by  Statutes 990 

456.  Payment  of  Bequests  for  Life  with  Remainder  over 998 

457-  Relative  Rights  of  Life  Tenants  and  Remaindermen  to  Dividends 

of  Stock 1003 

453.  Interest  on  Legacies 1005 

459.  Interest  when  Time  ot  Payment  is  fixed  by  the  Will 1008 

460.  Persons  competent  to  receive  Payment  of  Legacies 1011 

461.  The  Doctrine  of  Election 1015 

462.  Payment  of  the  Residue 1017 


xxviii  CONTENTS. 


TITLE    SEVENTH. 

OF   THE   APPLICATION  OF  THE  ASSETS   FOR   THE   PAY- 
MENT  OF   DEBTS   AND   LEGACIES. 


PART   FIRST. 

OF  THE  LIABILITY  OF  REAL  ESTATE  FOR  THE  DEBTS  OF 
DECEASED  PERSONS. 


CHAPTER  L. 

OF   THE   PROCEDURE   IN   OBTAINING   THE   ORDER   OF   SALE. 

Page 

^  463.  Nature  of  the  Power  to  sell  Real  Estate  for  tbe  Payment  of  Debts  1020 

464.  Who  may  apply  for  the  Order  to  sell  Real  Estate 1022 

465.  Within  what  time  Application  may  be  made     ........  1024 

466.  Notice  of  the  Application  to  Heirs  and  Devisees 1029 

467.  W^bo  may  appear,  and  what  may  be  shown  against  the  Application  .  1031 

468.  What  the  Petition  must  show 1035 

469.  Proof  of  the  Existence  of  Debts 1037 

470.  Proof  of  the  Insufficiency  of  the  Personalty 1040 

471.  What  Interest  of  the  Decedent  in  Lands  may  be  ordered  to  be  sold  .  1 042 

472.  Of  the  Bond  and  Oath  required  of  Executors  and  Administrators      .  1045 

473.  The  Order,  License,  or  Decree  to  Sell •     •  1047 

CHAPTER   LI. 

OF   THE   SALE   AND    ITS    CONSUMMATION. 

§  474.  Time  of  Selling 1050 

475.  Notice  or  Advertisement  of  the  Sale 1051 

476.  Appraisement  required  before  the  Sale 1053 

477.  Conducting  the  Sale 1055 

478.  Report  and  Confirmation  of  the  Sale 1059 

479.  Payment  of  the  Purchase  Money 1063 

480.  The  Deed  of  Conveyance 1065 

CHAPTER  LIT. 

OF  THE  CONSEQUENCES  ATTENDING  THE  SALE. 

§481.  Application  of  the  Proceeds 1069 

482.  Purchaser's  Liability  for  Encumbrances 1071 

483.  Purchaser's  Liability  to  Dowrcss  and  Homestead  Tenants      .     .     .  1074 


CONTENTS.  XXIX 

Page 

§  484.  How  Purchasers  are  affected  by  tlie  Rule  of  Caveat  Emptor    .     .     .  1077 

485.  The  Purchaser's  Riglits  iu  Equity 1078 

486.  The  Purchaser  as  aUcctcd  by  the  Statute  of  Frauds 1082 

487-  Executors  aud  Administrators  as  Purchasers .  1082 

488.  VaUdity  of  the  Sale  iu  Collateral  Actions 1088 


PART   SECOND. 

OF  THE  RELATIVE    LIABILITY  OF  ASSETS  TO  CREDITORS   AND 

LEGATEES. 


CHAPTER   Llll. 

OF   MARSHALLING    ASSETS    FOR   THE   PAYMENT    OF   DEBTS   AND 

LEGACIES. 

§  489.  Order  of  the  Application  of  Funds  Liable  to  the  Payment  of  Debts  .  1093 

490.  Charge  of  Debts  on  Real  Estate 109.5 

491.  Charge  of  Legacies  on  Real  Estate 1097 

492.  Effect  of  Devise  of  Rents  aud  Profits 1100 

493.  Exoneration  of  the  Personalty 1103 

494.  Exoneration  of  Mortgaged  Property 1105 

495.  Marshalling  Assets  in  the  Course  of  Administration 1106 

496.  Marshalling  Assets  among  Creditors,  Legatees,  Devisees,  Heirs,  and 

Distributees 1109 

497.  Statutes  affecting  the  Marshalling  of  Assets 1111 


TITLE    EIGHTH. 

OF  ACC0UNTI:N'G  and   SETTLE]\rEXTS   BY   EXECUTORS 
AND   ADMINISTKATORS. 


CHAPTER  LIV. 

OF   THE    COMMON   LAW   AND   STATUTORY    SYSTEM   OP   ACCOUNTING. 

§  498.  Of  Accounting  at  Common  Law  in  Courts  of  Probate 1115 

499.  Accounting  in  Common  Law  Courts 1116 

500.  Accounting  in  Equity 1117 

501.  Statutes  requiring  Periodical  Accounting 1118 

502.  Rendering  the  Account  and  Passing  ui)on  it 1120 


XXX  CONTENTS. 

Page 

§  503.  Exclusive  and  Concurrent  Jurisdiction  over  Administration  Accounts  1122 

504.  Conclusiveness  of  Partial  Settlements 1123 

505.  Nature  of  Final  Settlements 1126 

50G.  Conclusiveness  of  Final  SetUements 1128 

507.  Setting  aside  Final  Settlements  in  tlie  Probate  Court 1130 

508.  Setting  aside  Final  Settlements  in  Cliancery 1131 

CHAPTER  LY. 

OF   THE   DEBIT   SIDE   OF   THE   ACCOUNT. 

§  509.  Wliat  the  Accountant  must  show 1134 

510.  Inventoried  Assets  to  be  charged  in  the  Account 1136 

511.  What  Interest  Administrators  are  chargeable  with 1136 

512.  Debts  of  Executor  or  Administrator  to  be  charged 1139 

513.  Rents  and  Proceeds  of  Real  Estate  chargeable  to  the  Executor  or 

Administrator 1141 

CHAPTER  LYI. 

OF   THE   CREDIT   SIDE   OF   THE   ACCOUNT. 

§514.  What  the  Accountant  may  take  Credit  for 1144 

515.  What  Counsel  Fees  will  be  allowed 1145 

516.  What  Counsel  Fees  will  not  be  allowed 1147 

517.  Costs  of  Probate  and  establishing  the  Right  to  administer  ....  1149 

518.  Disbursements  in  Respect  of  the  Real  Estate 1151 

519.  Payments  to  Widow  and  Heirs 1152 

520.  Disbursements  in  Payment  of  Debts 1154 

521.  Payments  at  Discount,  or  in  Depreciated  Currency 1157 

522.  Credits  for  Difference  between  Inventoried  and  Actual  Values     .     .  1158 

523.  Interest  on  Advancements  by  the  Executor  or  Administrator  .     .     .  1159 

CHAPTER   LVn. 

COMPENSATION   OF   EXECUTORS    AND    ADMINISTRATORS. 

§  524.  Commissions  allowed  by  Statute 1160 

525.  Compensation  allowed  in  the  Absence  of  Statutory  Provision  .     .     .  1163 

526.  Compensation  in  Cases  of  Maladministration 1163 

527.  Discretion  of  the  Court  under  the  Statutes 1164 

528.  Upon  what  Property  Commissions  are  allowable  .......  1166 

529.  Compensation  for  Extra  Services 1168 

530.  Compensation  of  Joint  Executors  or  Administrators 1170 

531.  Compensation  to  Successive  Administrators 1172 

532.  Compensation  determined  by  the  Testator 1174 

533.  Credit  for  Commissions  in  the  Administration  Account .     ....  1176 


CONTENTS.  XXxi 

CHAPTER   LYIII. 

OP   THE   METHOD   AND    PROCEDURE   IN    ADJUDICATING    THE    ACCOUNT. 

Page 

§  534.  Devastavit 1178 

535.  Accouutiug  by  Co-executors  or  Co-admiuistrators 1179 

536.  Accounting  by  Successive  Administrators 1181 

537.  Accounting  for  Assets  received  in  Foreign  Jurisdiction 1183 

538.  Compelling  Fin;il  Settlement 1185 

539.  Falsifications  and  Surcharges  on  Final  Settlement 1186 

540.  Verification  and  Evidence 1187 

541.  Judgment  on  the  Adjudication  of  the  Account 1189 

CPIAPTER   LIX. 

OF  APPEALS  FROM  COURTS  OF  PROBATE. 

§  542.  Treatment  of  tlie  Subject 1192 

543.  Riglit  of  Appeal  given  by  Statutes 1192 

544.  Who  may  Appeal 1193 

545.  From  what  Decisions  of  Probate  Courts  Appeals  are  allowable     .     .  1196 

54G.  How  Appeal  is  taken 1199 

547.  Powers  of  the  Probate  Court  after  Appeal 1202 

54S.  The  Question  of  Supersedeas  under  the  Statutes 1204 

549.  Nature  of  the  Trial  in  the  Appellate  Court 1206 

550.  Nature  of  the  Trial  de  Novo 120S 


TITLE    ISTIS^TH. 

OF   THE   CLOSE   OF  THE   ADMINISTRATION. 


PART   FIRST. 

OF    DISTUIBUTION  TO  LEG.VTEES  AND  NEXT  OF  KIN. 
551.  Duty  of  Probate  Courts  to  order  Distribution 1211 


CHAPTER    LX. 

OF   ADVANCEMENTS. 

552.  Definition  of  Advancements 1213 

553.  Advancements  in  Testate  Estates 1215 

554.  To  whom  the  Doctrine  ef  Advancements  applies 1216 

555.  What  constitutes  an  Advancement 1217 

556.  Rights  of  Donees  in  Respect  of  Advancements 1219 


XXxii  CONTENTS. 

Page 

§  557.  Computation  of  the  Value  of  Advancements 1221 

558.  How  the  Existence  of  Advancements  may  be  shown 1222 

559.  Statutory  Provisions  as  to  Advancements 1224 

CHAPTER   LXI. 

OF   THE    DECREE    OR   ORDER    OF   DISTRIBUTION. 

§  560.  Refunding  Bonds 1227 

561.  Parties  to  the  Order  of  Distribution 1229 

562.  Nature  and  Scope  of  the  Decree 1231 

563.  nights  of  Assignees  of  Distributees 1235 

564.  Set-off  to  Legacies  and  Distributive  Shares 1236 

565.  The  Law  vesting  the  lliglits  of  Legatees  and  Distributees      .     .     .  1238 

566.  Voluntary  Distribution 1241 

567.  Partition  of  Real  Estate  in  Courts  of  Probate 1243 

568.  Enforcing  the  Order  to  pay  Legacies  and  Distributive  Shares      .     .  1246 

569.  Enforcement  of  Distribution  under  American  Statutes 1248 


PART   SECOND. 

OF  THE  ESTATE  AFTER  OFFICIAL  ADMINISTRATION. 


CHAPTER   LXn. 

OF   THE   STATUS   OF   EXECUTORS    AND    ADMINISTRATORS    AFTER  FINAL 

SETTLEMENT. 

§  570.  i2i?5 /«f/2Va(f«  as  a  Defence  after  Final  Settlement 1253 

571 .  Duration  of  the  Office  at  Common  Law 1254 

572.  American  Theory  of  the  Duration  of  the  Office 1255 

573.  Statutory  Provisions  for  the  Discharge  of  Executors  and  Adminis- 

trators        1257 

CHAPTER  LXni. 

OF   THE   LIABILITY  OF  THE   ESTATE   AFTER    FINAL    SETTLEMENT. 

§  574.  Liability  of  the  Estate  at  Common  Law 1261 

575.  Principle  of  Liability  under  American  Statutes 1262 

576.  Extent  of  Liability  of  the  Heir 1264 

577.  Exhaustion  of  Remedies    against   Personal   Representative  before 

Action  will  lie  against  Heirs 1267 

578.  Time  within  which  Claims  may  be  enforced  against  Heirs  .     .     .  1268 

579.  Nature  of  the  Action  against  Heirs  and  Devisees,  Distributees,  and 

Legatees 1270 


Index 1273 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


Pnpe 

Aaron's  Succession  (11  La.  An.  671)  180 

Abbav  V.  Hill  (lU  Miss.  340)  848,  lOOO 

Abbey  v.  Aymar  (:i  Dem.  400)  881 

Abbis  V.  Winter  ('-i  Swaiist.  .^78,  n.)  785 

Abbott  y.  Abbott  (41  Mich.  540)  473,  475 

V.  Bosworth  (.{ti  Uli.  St.  005)  2-K 

v.  Miller  (10  Mo.  141)  3G7 

V.  People  (10  III.  App.  G2)  4-34 

V.  Tennev  (18  N.  H.  lOiJ)  031,  li)70 

V.  Winchester  (105  Mass.  115)  609 

Abel  I'.  Love  (17  Cal.  233)  5U2 

Aberci'onibie    v.   Abercrombie   (27   Ala. 

4S^)  8U2 

V.  Sheldon  (8  Allen,  532)  543 

V.  Skinner  (42  Ala.  633)  678  ' 

Abila  V.  Burnett  (33  Cal.  658)  1039 

V.  I'adilla  (14  Cal.  103)  468 

Abin^ton  v.  Travis  (15  Mo.  240)  640 

Abraham  v.  Wilkins  (17  Ark.  292)  41,  67,  68 

Abrani  y.  Cunningham  (2  Lev.  182)  585 

Academy  v.  Cleniens  (50  Mo.  167)      920,  931 

Acherlev  v.  Vernon  (Willes,  153)       951,952 

Ackerman's  Case  (40  N.  .J.  Eq.  533)  1140 

Ackerman  v.  Emott  (4  Barb.  626)  1138 

V.  Shelp  (8  N.  J.  L.  125)  254,  2.56 

V.  Vreeland  (14  N.  .J.  Eq.  23)  915 

Ackermann,  In  re  (33  j\linn.  54)  1029 

Ackley  v.  Dygert  (33  Barb.  170)  1049 

Acklin  V.  Goodman  (77  Ala.  521)  325 

Ackroydi'.  Smithson  (1  Bm.  C.  C.  503)     728 

Adair  v.  Brimmer  (74  N.  Y.  539)       654,  738, 

1155 
V.  Brimmer  (95  N.  Y.  35)  1203 

V  Shaw  (1  Sch.  &  Lef.  243)  401 

Adams,  Goods  of  (L.  R.  2  P.  &  D.  367)       62 
V.  Adams  (11  \i.  Mon.  77)  375 

V.  Adams  (46  Ga.  030)  204,  206 

V.  Adams  (10  Met.  170)  161,  178 

V.  Adams  (57  Miss.  207)  223 

V.  Adams  (7  Oh.  St.  8!)  1184 

V.  Adams  (21  Vt.  102)  331,  3-32,  1131 

V.  Adams  (22  Vt.  50)     325,  350,  001,  815, 
1123,  1128,  1246 
V.  Bass  (18  Ga.  130)  931 

r.  Beall  (00  Ga.  325)  1201 

V.  Butts  (10  Pick.  343)  760,  828 

V.  Chaplin  (1  Hill,  S.  C.  Eq.  265)  71 

V.  Eatherlv   Hardware  Co.  (3  S.  E. 

H.,  (Ja.  430)  830 

V.  Edwards  (115  Pa.  St.  211)  8:!2 

V.  Field  (21  Vt.  250)  05 

V.  Gillespie  (2  .Tones  Eq.  244)  9.50 

«.  Gleaves  (10  Lea,  367)  1180 

V.  Jeffreys  (12  Oh.  253)  330 

VOL.    I.  —  C 


Pajre 

Adams  v.  Larrimore  (51  Mo.  1-30)      397,  1047 

V.  Lathan  (14  Licli.  K(i.  304)  1174 

?•.  Lewis  (5  Sawv.  229)  350 

V.  Marsteller  (7(J  lud.  381)  296 

V.  Morrison  (4  N.  H.  166)  10-56 

V.  Palmer  (51  Mc.  480)  251 

V.  Peirce  (3  P.  Wms.  11)  992 

V.  Smith  (19  Nev.  259)  1155 

V.  Thomas  (44  Ark.  267)  1062.  1079 

V.  Toomer  (44  Ark.  271)    1002,  1079,1080 

V.  Turner  (12  S.  C.  594)  1242 

■       V.  Wilbur  (2  Sumn.  200)  885 

Addams  v.  Heffernan  (9  Watts,  .')29)  1011 

Addington  v.  Wilson  (5  Ind.  137)  34 

Addison  v.  Bowie  (2  Bl.  Ch.  GOG)  270 

Aden  v.  Aden  (16  Lea,  453)  1217 

Adie  V.  Cornwell  (3  T.  B.  Mon.  276)  992 

Adkinson  v.  Breeding  (56  Iowa,  20)  177 

Adlum's  Estate  (0  Phila.  347)  375 

Adriance  v.  Crews  (45  Tex.  181)  089 

Adshead  v.  Willetts  (29  Beav  358)  881 

Adsit's  Estate  (Mvr.  266)  498 

Adsit  V.  Adsit  (2  Johns.  Ch.  448)  2o7 

Adve  V.  Smith  (44  Conn.  GO)        928,  932,  934 

/Etna  Ins.  Co.  v.  Swavze  (30  Kan.  118)     084 

Affleck  V.  Snodgrass  (8  Oh.  St.  234)  1075 

Agnew  V.  Fetterman  (4  Pa.  St.  50)  1096 

Agricultural  Bank  i'.  Kice  (4  How.  225)     2.50 

Aguirre  v.  Packard  (14  Cal.  171)  805 

Ahearn  v.  Mann  (63  N.  H.  330)  1200 

Ahem  v.  Steele  (48  Hun,  517)  623,  1202 

Aicard  v.  Dalv  (7  La.  An.  612)  1083 

Aiken  v.  Bridgman  (37  Vt.  249)  828 

V.  Coolidge  (12  Or.  244)  812 

V.  Morse  (104  Mass.  277)  8.58 

V.  Weckerlv  (19  Mich.  482)  44 

Aikin  v.  Dunlap  (10  John.  77)  772,  777 

Aikman  v.  Har.scll  (98  N.  Y.  186)  254 

Aiuslie  v.  Kadcliff  (7  Pai.  4.39)  776 

Ake's  Appeal  (21  Pa.  St.  .320)  1129 

Aken  r.  Geiger  (52  Ga.  407)  212 

Akers  v.  Ak.Ts  (10  Lea,  7)  676 

Akins  V.  Hill  (7  Ga.  573)  1132 

Alabama   Conference  v.  Price  (42  Ala. 

.39)  1021 

Alabama  State  Bank  v.  Glass  (82  Ala. 

278)  8.39 

Albany  Fire  Ins.  Co.  r.  Bav  (4  N.  Y.  9)    732 
Albee'i'.  Carpenter  (12  Cush.  382)  639 

Albers  v.  Whitnev  (1  Sto.  310)  3-36 

Alcorn  v.  State  (.57  Miss.  273)  1057,  1058 

Alden  i'.  Johnson  (63  Iowa,  124)  110,  948 

Aldrich  v.  Annin  (54  Mich   230)  814 

r.  Howard  (8  K.I.  125)  620 


XXXIV 


TABLE   OF    CASES. 


Alciridge  v.  McClelland    (36   N.  ,1.    Eii- 

288)  li:W,  1147,  Hul,  nr,2 

Ales  r.  Plant  (fil  Miss.  259)  H)2G 

Alexander's  Will  (27  N.  J.  Eq.  4fi3)  499 

Alexander  v.  Alexander  (70  Ala.  212)      1128 

V.  Alexander  (0  De  G.  M.  &  G.  533)  87G 

r.  Alexander  (48  Ind.  559)  814 

V.  Barfield  ((J  Tex.  400)  432 

V.  Fisher  (18  Ala.  374)  1229 

V.  Hening  (54  Ga.  200)  1004 

V.  Kelso  (1  Baxt.  5)  419 

V.  Kelso  (3  Baxt.  311)  684 

V.  Lane  (Yelv.  137)  422 

V.  McMurrv  (8  Watts,  504)  1090 

V.  Maverick  (18  Tex.  179)  1049,  1078 

V.  INIiller  (7  Heisk.  65)  1104 

V.  .Mullens  (2  R.  c^'  Mvl.  5G8)  798 

V.  Nelson  (42  Ala.  462')  331 

V.  Kanev  (8  Ark.  324)  752 

V.  Rice  (52  Mich.  451)  330 

V.  Stewart  (8  G.  &  J.  226)  394,  744 

i:  Wallace  (8  Lea.  569)  902 

V.  W^aller  (6  Bush,  330)  935,  1094 

Alfonso's  Appeal  (70  Pa.  St.  347)  369 

Alfonso  V.  United  States  (2  Sto.  421)  671 

Alford  r.  Lehman  (70  Ala.  526)  212 

Alfriend  r.  Daniel  (48  Ga.  154)  418.  423 

Allaire  v.  Allaire  (37  N.  J.  L.  312)  71,  475,  493 

V.  Allaire  (39  N.  J.  L.  113)  71 

Allan  r.  Gillet  (21  Fed.  R.  273)  1085 

Allefthenv  Bank  v.  Havs  (12  Fed.  Rep. 

663)     "  '  989 

AUenian  v.  Bergeron  (16  La.  An.  191)        437 
Allen,  F:x  parte  (89  III   474)  1148 

Ex  j.arie  (15  Mass.  57)     1026,  1039, 1040 
Allen's  Will  (25  Minn.  .39)  68,  70 

Allen  V.  Allen  (12  A.  c^  F.  451)  490 

v.  Allen  (3  Deni.  524)  761, 1144 

7'.  Allen  (112  111.  323)  275 

r.  Allen  (28  Kan.  18)  58 

r.  Allen  (26  jMo.  327)  795 

V.  Allen  (18  Oh.  St.  234)  708 

v.  Allen  (13  S.  C.  512)  978,  979,  980 

V.  Allen  (18  How.  U.  S.  385)  892 

V.  Ashley  (102  Mass.  262)  1070 

V.  Barnes  (12  Pac.  R.  912)  354,  1102 

V.  Bvers  (12  Ark.  593)  807 

V.  Bfadford  (3  Ala.  281)  337 

V.  Clark  (2  BlackL  .343)  857 

V.  Clavbrook  (.58  Mo.  124)  111 

V.  Crosland  (2  Rich.  Eq.  08)  1009 

V.  Dundas  (3  T.  R.  125)  448,  449,  4,58,  .587 
V.  Edwards  (136  Mass.  138)  970,  1238 
V.  Elliott  (67  Ala.  432)  807 

r.  Everett  (12  H.  Mon.  .371)  05 

11.  Graffins  (8  Watts,  397)  79.5 

V.  Griffin  (09  Wis.  529)  37,  68   70 

V.  Hawlev  (06  111.  164)  201 

V.  Irwin  (1  S.  &  R.  549)  7.".2 

V.  .Jackson  (L.  R.  1  Ch.  D.  399)  961.  902 
V.  .Jeter  (0  Lea,  072)  489 

i:  Kimball  (15  Me.  116)  417 

V.  Keith  (20  Miss.  232)  857 

V.  McCoy  (8  Ohio,  418)  2.10 

V.  McPher.son  (1  H.  L.  Cas.  191)  485 

V.  INIanasse  (4  Ala.  554)  182 

V.  Matthews  (7  Ga.  149)  794 

V.  Pray  (12  :\Ie.  138)  268 

V.  I'uhlic  Administrator  (1  Bradf.  378)  48 
V.  Russell  (39  Oh.  St.  336)  202 

V.  Sales  (56  Mo.  28)  336 


Page 
Allen  IV  Sanders  (?4  N.  .1.  Eq.  203)  549 

r.  Shepard  (87  111.  314)     1058,  1061,  1003 
r.  Shields  (72  N.  C.  .504)  209 

V.  Simons  (1  Curt.  122)  432,  1241 

V.  Smith  (29  Ark.  74)  860 

V.  Walt  (9  Heisk.  242)  609 

V.  Whitaker  (34  Ga.  6)  941 

r.  Wilkins  (3  Allen,  321)  518,  642 

Allensworth  v.  Kimbrough  (79  Ky.  332)   207, 

214 

Ailing  r.  Chatfield  (42  Conn.  276)  208 

V.  Munson  (2  Conn.  691)  685,  811 

Allison  r.  Abrams  (40  Miss.  747)     1182,  1185 

V.  Allison  (4  Hawkes,  141)  75 

V.  Chanev  (03  Mo.  279)  873 

,v.  Kurtz "(2  Watts,  185)  1067 

V.  Smith  (16  IMich.  405)  911 

V.  W^ilson  (13  S.  &  R.  330)  555 

Allmon  V.  Pigt;'  (82  III.  149)  46 

Allsup  r.  Allsup  (10  Yerg.  283)  363,  369,  371 

Alsop's  Appeal  (9  Pa.  St.  374)  113 

Alsop  V.  Mather  (8  Conn.  584)  28-3,  1182 

V.  Russell  (38  Conn.  99)  '  873 

Alston  V.  Alston  (7  Ired.  Eq.  172)  1240 

V.  Davis  (2  Head,  266)  951 

i:  Munford  (1  Brock.  266)         1012,  1107 

Altemus's  Case  (1  Ashm.  49)  519 

Estate  (32  La.  An.  364)  323,  529 

Alter  r  Kins%vorthv  (30  Ark.  7-56)  809 

Aliheimer  v.  Davis"(37  Ark.  316)  200 

Alvord  V.  INIarsh  (12  Allen,  603)  385,  426,  699 

Ambler  i'.  Liudsav  (L.  K.  3  Ch.  D.  198)   417. 

421 
Ambre  v.  Weisharr  (74  111.  109)  68 

Ambrose  r.  Kerrison  (10  C.  B.  776)  762 

Ambs  V.  Caspari  (13  Mo.  App.  586)  782 

American  Academy  r.  Harvard  College 

(12  Gray,  .582)  927 

American,"  &c.  Assoc,  v.  Lett  (42  N.  J. 

Eq.  43)  1097 

American   Bible   Society  i'.  Hebard  (51 

Barb.  552)  "  1247 

V.  Hebard  (41  N.  Y.  619)  1247 

V.  Marshall  (15  Oh.  St.  537)  513 

V.  Pratt  (9  Allen,  109)  892 

V.  Price  (115  111.  623)  41 

American  Board's  Appeal  (27  Conn.  344)  743, 

856 
American  Board  ?'.  Nelson  (72  111.  564)  107 
American   Case  Co.  v.   Shaughnessy  (59 

Mi^s.  398)  '  675 

American  Life  Ins.  Co.  v.  Shulz  (82  Pa. 

St.  46)  830,  836 

American  Tract  Society  v.  Atwater  (-30 

Oh.  St.  77)  '  913 

Ames,  In  re  (3  McArth.  30)  1182 

Ames's  F:state  (52  Mo.  290)  359,  367,  368.  050 

Succession  (33  La.  An.  1317)  1011 

M'ill  (51  Iowa,  590)  43 

Ames  r.  Ames  (128  IMass.  277)  820,  1234 

v.  Armstrong  (106  Mass.  15)         558,  7-37 

V.  Downing  (1  Bradf.  .321)  281 

V.  Jackson  (115  Mass.  508)  1155 

Amherst  College    v.    Smith    (134   Mass. 

543)  1100 

Amis  V.  Cameron  (55  Ga.  449)  433,  1241 

Amiss  V.  Williamson  (17  W.  Va.  673)        999 
Amnion's  Appeal  (31  Pa.  St.  311)  1143 

Amnrv  r.  Francis  (16  Mass.  308)  8.59 

Amos'  V.  Campbell   (9  Fla.  187)      802,  1247, 

1250 


TABLE   OF    CASES. 


XXXV 


Pn-e 
Amos  V.  Ilcatliprbv  (7  Dana,  45)  1107 

Aiiiphlott  V.  llil)l)i!id  (iJ  Midi.  -iJS)  -J  1 2 

Aiulersoii's  .Apjifiil  ('-Hi  I'a.  St.  47G)  '2&J 

Appeal  (IU2  I'a.  St.  2.J8)  U:^S 

Afidersoii  v.  Acktnnian  (88  Iiid.  481)  234 

V.  .Vnderson  (;i7  Ala.  683)  1147 

V.  Arnold  (7'J  Kv.  .■J70)  G23 

V.  Buebe  (22  Kan.  7tJ8)  2X) 

V.  Ik-lchoi- ( 1  Hill,  S.  C.  24G)  fi-ii 

V.  ISradlcv  (CO  Ala.  2:3:j)  10G7 

r.  Biirwuil  (G  Grat.  405)  1247 

V.  Cary  (:3G  Oh.  St.  503  955 

r.  Crist  (113  Ind.  G5)  876 

V.  Davison  (42  llmi.  4-31) 
V.  i'.arle  (!)  S.  C.  460) 
V  Feiton  (1  Ired.  Kq.  55) 
V.  Gruen  (46  Ga.  -30 1) 
V.  GroKK  U^  il'^s.  170) 
V.  Hall  (80  Kv.  yi) 
V.  Irwin  (lOriU.  411) 
f.  Lerv  (8-3  Ark.  6G5) 
V.  McGowan  (42  Ala.  230) 
V.  Norton  (15  Lea,  14) 
V.  Piercy  (20  W.  Va.  282) 


App  v.  Dreisbach  (2  Kawlo,  237) 

.Vppel  I'.  Bver.s  (98  I'a.  St.  479) 
Apperbuii  v.  Boltou  (2J  Ark.  418) 


989 
721 
942 
702,  1087 
-339,  11-37 
949 
483 
1029 
721 
286 
678,  1007, 
1138,1147,1158 
V.  Potter  (5  Cal.  63)  516 

V.  Stockdale  (62  Tex.  54)  725 

V.  Tindall  (2G  Miss.  332)  853,  8  53 

V.  Wynne  (62  Ala.  329)  6.)9 

Andover   v.  Merrimack  Co.    (37  N.  H. 

437)  G39 

Andrade     v.    Superior    Court    (17    Pac. 

531)  2:iG 

Andres  i-.  Powell  (97  N.  C.  155)     1229,  12  17, 

1269 

Andress's  Estate  (14  Phila.  263)  190 

Andress  r.  Weller  (3  N.  J.  E(i.  G04)  8J2 

Andrew  r.  .Vnilrew  (1  CoUv.  68(J)  936 

V.  Bible  Soc.  (4  Sandf."  15G)  936 

r.  (iallison  (15  Mass.  325,  n  )  426 

I'.  Hiiiderman  (71  Wis.  148)  631 

Andrews  v.  Andrews  (8  Conn.  7 J)  234 

V.  Andrews  (7  Heisk.  234)  725 

V.  Andrews  (110  111.  223)  92.) 

V.  Andrews  (12  Mart.  713)  79 

V.  Andrews  (7  Oh.  St.  143)  1149 

V.  -Avorv  (14  Grat.  229)  452 

V.  Bernfiardi  (87  111.  363)  329,  1089 

V.  Brown  (21  Ala.  437)  283 

t).  Carr  (2  R.  I.  117)  .579 

r.  Hall  (15  Ala.  85)  1215,1217 

V.  Huckabee  (-30  Ala.  143)  843 

V.  Hunneman  (6  I'it-k.  126)  992,  993 

r.  ■Iones(10  Ala.  400)  608 

V.  Melton  (51  Ala.  400)  215 

V.  Tucker  (7  Pick.  250)  576.  666 

Androscoggin  Bank  i;  Kimball  (10  Cush. 

373)  52 

Andrus  r.  Foster  (17  Vt.  556)  824 

Andruss  v.  Doolittle  (11  Conn.  283)     631,  666 
AngcU  V.  Angell  ( 14  R.  I.  541)  325 

Anger's  Succession  (36  La.  An.  252)  1110 

Succession  (38  La.  An.  492)  1062 

Angevine  v.  .lackson  (103  N.  Y.  470)        1208 
Annal)le  v.  Patch  (3  Pick.  360)  896,  8:)7 

Annin  r.  Annin  (24  N.  .1.  F.q.  184)  609 

Anshutz  V.  Miller  (81  Pa.  St.  212)  8S8 

Anslev  v.  Baker  (14  Tex.  607)  420 

Ansoii  V.  Stein  (6  Iowa,  l.'iO)  1234 

Anthonv  r.  .\nthonv  (55  Conn.  256)  266 

Apel  r.'Kelsev  (47  Ark.  413)  1030,  1054,  1059 


792,  ]2.j4, 

12."j5 

892 

2.54,  2  i7, 

3(iO,  442 

480,  481 

990 

608 

2.32 

479 


V.  Cottrell  (3  Port.  51) 
Apple's  Estate  (66  Cal.  432) 
Appier.  Allen  (3  .Jones  K-i.  120) 

r.  Apple  (1  H  .ad,  548) 
Applebv  i:  Brock  (76  Mo.  314) 
Applegate  v.  Cameron  (2  Bradf.  119)  164,  192 

V.  Conner  (93  Ind.  185)  251 

V.  Gracv  (0  Dana,  215)  249 

V.  Smith  (31  Mo.  166)    378,  493,  494,  887 
Appling  r.  Fades  (1  Grat.  286)  91 

Apthorp  V.  North  (14  Mass.  167)  560 

Arguelle,  Estate  ot  (50  Cal.  308)  1046 

,\niiingion  v   Armington  (28  Ind.  74)         154 
Armistead  v.  Bozman  (1  Ired.  Eq.  117)      554 

I'.  Dani;ertield  (3  Munf.  20)  1240 

Armitage  v.  Mace  (96  N.  V.  538)  612 

V.  Snowden  (41  Md.  119)  836 

Armour  v.  Kendall  (15  R.  I.  193)  1236 

Armstrong's  Appeal  (63  Pa.  St.  312)  965,937 
Armstrong  v.  Armstrong  (29  Ala.  538)         65 

V.  Armstrong  (14  B.  Mon.  333) 

r.  Armstrong  (1  Greg.  207) 

V.  Armstrong  (63  Wis.  1G2) 

r.  Baker  (9  Ired.  109) 

V.  Crapo  (72  Iowa,  604) 

r.  Huston  (8  Ohio,  552) 

V.  Lear  (12  Wheat.  169) 

V   McKelvev(104N.  Y.179) 

r.  Moore  (,59  Tex.  646) 

V.  .Moran  (1  Bradf.  314) 

r.  Park  (9  Humph.  195) 

r.  Storall  (26  Miss.  275) 

V.  Stowe  (77  N.  C.  360) 
Arneit  r.  .Vrnett  (14  Ark.  57) 

r.  Arnett  (27  III.  247) 
Arnold  I'.  Arnold  (62  Ga.  627) 

V.  .\rnold  (8  R.  Mon.  202) 

V.  Babbitt  (5  .1.  .1.  Marsh.  665) 

V.  Blackwell  (2Dev.Eq.  1) 

r.  Buff  urn  (2  Mason,  208) 

V.  Commonwealth  (SO  Kv.  135) 

V.  Dean  (61  Tex.  249) 

V.  Farle  (2  Lee  Eccl.  R.  539) 

V.  Haroun  (43  Hun,  278) 

V.  Lanier  (Car.  Law  Rep.  143) 

f.  Ru-gles  (1  R.  I.  16.5) 

r.  Sabm  (1  Cush.  .525) 


873 
1239 
47 
472 
8/3 
1062 
492 
728,  1271 
210 
938 
725 
632 
576 
230 
82 
441 
2)2 
552 
1164 
831 
810 
lO.'O 
24 
1215 
625 
6.39 
522,  5.30 
r.  Sabin  (4  Cush.  46)  588,  1204 

V.  Smith  (14  R.  I.  217)    1153,  1165,  1229, 

1249 

I'.  Spates  (65  Iowa,  570)  1122,  1132 

Arringtou  v.  Dortch  (77  N.  C.  367)  372,  1217, 

1239 

r.  Hair  (19  Ala.  243)  751 

V.  McLemore  (33  Ark.  759)  501 

Arterburn  v.  Young  (14  Bush,  509)  1200 

Asburv  V.  Jlclntosh  (20  Mo.  278)  298 

Ash  v'.  Ash  (9  Oh.  St.  383)  110 

V.  Calvert  (2  Camp.  387)  467 

Ashbrook  v.  Rvon  (2  Bush,  228)  119 

Ashburn  r\  Ashburn  (16  Ga.  213)  393 

Ashburner  r.  Macquire  (2  Bro.  Ch.  108)     973 

Ashbv  !•.  Child  (Stvles,  384)  420 

Ashford  r.  Fwin-  (25  Pa.  St.  213)     344,  1249 

Ashlev  r.  Gunton  (15  Ark.  415)  809 

V.  Hendee  (56  Vt.  209)  824 


XXXVl 


TABLE   OF   CASES. 


Ashley  r.  Pocock  (3  Atk.  208)  785 

Ashiiicad's  Appeal  (27  Comi.  241)  855 

Ashiuuad  V.  Wilson  (22  l-la.  255)  7i;j 

Ashtoii  V.  Miles  (-i'J  lawa,  504)  804,  825 

Asiiiari  v.  Bangs  (3  IJeni.  385)  89 

Askew  V.  Bvnum  (81  N.  (J.  350)  200 

Askew  V.  Hudgens  ('J'J  111.  468)  1102 

Aspden  s  Estate  (2  Wall.  C.  C.  3G8)    902,  903 
Asp.len  V.  Nixon  (4  How.  407)  300,  301 

Aspinwall  v.  Pirnie  (4  Edw.  Ch.  410)       1174 
Aston's  Estate  (5  Whart.  228)  1172 

Astor  V.  Hoyt  (5  Wend.  603)  646 

Atclieson  o.'Eobertson  (4  Kith.  Eq.  39)    1146 

828 
627 
225 
993 
505 
793 
819 
540 
530 


532, 


529 


207 

610 
620 

848 
907 
927 
931 
910 
933 


927 

310 

922 

949 

933 

1135 

543,  545 

232 

1108,  1114 

3  ),  502 

621,  715 

922 

340 


931, 


Pafio 

Avers  v.  Donnell  (57  Mo.  396)  844 

■    V.  Dixon  (78  N.  Y.  318)  621 

Aynsworth  v.  Pratehett  (13  Ves.  321)  10ii9 

Avres  V.  Probasco  (14  Kaii.  175)  212 

V.  Shannon  (5  Mo.  282)  1073 

V.  Weed  (16  Conn.  291)  512 

Ayrey  v.  Hill  (2  Add.  200)  39,  40 


Atchison  v.  Smith  (25  Tex.  228) 

V.  Twine  (9  Kan.  350) 
Atkins  V.  Atkins  (18  Neb.  474) 
V.  Hill  (Cowp.  284) 
t'.  McCormiek  (4  Jones,  274) 
V.  Sawyer  (1  Pick.  351) 
V.  Scarborough  (9  Humph.  517) 
Atkinson  r.  Christian  (3  Grat.  448) 
V.  Hasty  (21  Neb.  663) 
V.  Kowson  (1  Mod.  208) 
V.  Sutton  (23  W.  Va.  197) 
Atlantic    Bank   v.    Tavener    (130  Mass. 

407) 
Atterbury  r.  Gill  (2  Flip.  239) 
Attorney  General  v.  Brigham  (142  Mass. 
248)  646, 

V.  Fishmongers'  Co.  (2  Reav.  151) 
V.  Garrison  (101  Mass.  223) 
V.  Gibson  (2  Beav.  317) 
V.  Goulding  (2  Bro.  C.  C.  428) 
V.  Hewer  (2  Vern.  387) 
V.  Ironmongers'    Co.    (2   Myl.  &  K. 

570)  927,  931 

V.  .Tolly  (1  Ptich.  Eq.  99)        919,  929,  9-30 

V.  Meeting-house  (3  Gray,  1 )  923 

V,  Painter-Stainers  (2  Cox  Ch.  51) 

V.  Provident e  (8  R.  I.  8) 

V.  Trinity  Church  (9  Allen,  422) 

V.  Wallace  (7  B.  Mon.  611)  929, 

V.  Williams  (4  Bro.  C.  C.  394) 

Atwater  r.  Barnes  (21  Conn.  237) 

Atwell  V.  Helm  (7  Bush.  504) 

At  wood  V.  At  wood  (22  Pick.  283) 

V.  Frost  (59  Mich.  409) 

Aubert  v.  Aubert  (6  La.  An.  104) 

Aubuchon  v.  Lory  (23  Mo.  99) 

Auch's  Succession  (39  La.  An.  1043) 

Auguisola  V.  Arnaz  (51  Cal.  435) 

Augustus  )'   Seabolt  (3  Met.  Kv.  155)  880 

Aulick  V.  Wallace  (12  Bush.  531)  880 

Austell  V.  Swann  (74  Ga.  278)  257,  258 

Austin,  Matter  of  (45  Hun,  1)  70 

V.  Austin  (50  Me.  74)  258,  2.59 

V.  Fielder  (40  Ark.  144)  71 

V.  Gage  (9  Mass.  395)  650 

V  Holmes  (1  Ired.  .399)  827 

V.  .lordan  (35  Ala.  042)  1185,  1180 

V.  Lnmar  (23  Miss.  189)  332 

V.  Munro  (47  N.  Y.  360)  757 

Avery  v.  Averv  (12  Tex.  54)  632 

V.  Chappei  (6  Conn.  270)  892 

V.  Dufrees  (9  Ohio,  145)  1043 

V.  Myers  (00  Miss.  367)  285 

V.  Pixlev  (4  IVLass.  460)  94 

Axtell's  Appeal  (0  Atl.  550)  1151 

Aver  V.  Aver  (128  Mass.  575)  1000 

'    V.  Messer  (59  N.  H.  279)  1131 

Ayers  v.  Ayers  (43  N.  J.  Eq.  565)  68,  70 


Babbv.  Reed  (5  Rawle,  151) 
Babbett  v.  Doe  (4  Ind.  355) 
Babbitt  v.  Bowen  (.32  Vt.  437) 
V.  Dav  (41  X.  J.  Eq.  392) 
Babcock  v.  Babcock  (53  How.  Pr.  97) 


V.  Booth  (2  Hill,  N.  Y.  181) 
V.  Cobb  (11  Minn.  349) 
V.  Eckhr  (21  N.  Y.  023) 
Backhouse  r.  Jett  (1  Brock.  500) 
Bacon  v.  Crandon  (15  Pick.  79) 
V.  Fairman  (6  Conn.  121) 
V.  Gassett  (13  Alien,  334) 
V.  Morrison  (57  Mo.  68) 
V.  Parker  (12  Conn.  212) 
V.  Pomerov  (104  Mass.  577) 
V.  Thorp  (27  Conn.  251) 
Badger  v.  Daniel  (79  N.  C.  372) 

r.  .Tones  (60  N.  C.  -305) 
Badillo  V.  Tio  (7  La.  An.  487) 
Baggott  V.  Boulger  (2  Duer,  160) 
Bahnerfs  Estate  (12  Phila.  27) 
Baier  v.  Baier  (4  Dem.  102) 
Bailev.  Goods  of  (2  Sw.  &  Tr.  156) 
Bailev's  Appeal  (32  Pa.  St.  40) 
Bailey's  Case  (1  Atl.  131) 
BaileV's  Succession  (30  La.  An.  75) 
Bailev  v-  Bailey  (35  Ala.  687) 
V.  Bailev  (115  111.  551) 
V.  BaileV  (25  Mich.  18.5) 
V.  BaileV  (8  Oh.  239) 
V.  Blanchard  (12  Pick.  160) 
V.  Bovce  (4  Strobh.  Eq.  84) 
V.  Bovd  (59  Ind.  292) 
V.  Br'iggs  (56  N.  Y.  407) 
V.  Brown  (9  R.  I.  79) 
V.  Miller  (5  Ired.  L.  444) 
v.  Munden  (.58  Ala.  104) 
V.  Patterson  (3  Rich.  Eq. 
V.  Sanger  (108  Ind.  264) 
V.  Scott  (13  Wis.  618) 
V.  Spofford  (14  Hun,  80) 
V.  Stewart  (2  Rcdf.  212) 
V.  Stiles  (2  N.  J.  Eq   220) 
v.  Strong  (8  Conn.  278) 
r.  Tavlor  (11  Conn.  531) 
Baillio  V.  Wilson  (5  Mart.  N.  S.  214) 
Bailv  V.  Osborn  (33  Miss.  128) 
Bainbridge's  Appeal  (97  Pa.  St.  482) 
Baines  v.  McGce  (1  Sm   &  M.  208) 
Bainwav  v.  Cobb  (99  Mass.  457) 
Baird  v.  Baird  (7  Ired.  Eq.  205) 
V.  Brooks  (05  Iowa,  40) 
V.  Boucher  (00  Miss.  326) 
Bake  v.  Smilev  (84  Ind.  212) 
Baker's  Appeal  (107  Pa.  St.  381) 
Baker's  Will  (2  Redf.  179) 
Baker  v.  Baker  (8  Gray,  101) 
r.  Baker  (51  Wis.'5-;8) 
V.  Baker  (.57  W^s.  382) 
V.  Bean  (74  Me.  17) 
V.  Brailsby  (23  111.  632) 


932 

1040 
434 
233 

245. 
204 
658 

104i; 
60!) 

1124 
811 
653 

1210 

1060,  1086 

415,  420 

1207 


632, 


850 

1200 

748 

1103 

(-03 

1229 

584 

29 

1048 

721 

654 

63 

1018 

.54,  873,  903 

407 

1188,  1189 

268 

157 

354 

722 

414 

11.53 

901 

884 

395 

730 

499 

473,  482 

1122 

94 

3-23 

498 

705 

694 

605 

873,  884 

431 

880 

1190 

64,  65 

51 

903 

193 

170,  171 

1265,  1267,  1209 

1068 


156) 


TABLE    OF   CASES. 


XXXVU 


Pa  Re 

Baker  r.  Brown  (18  111.91)  844 

V.  Chase  (0  Hill,  482)  244 

V.  Craiulal!  (78  Mu.  584)  025 

17.  Deniii-(8  Ad.  &  El.  U4)  GJ 

I'  D(.l)viis  (4  Dana,  220)  483 

V.  FuikT  (GU  .Ale.  152)  7'J.5 

v.  Hciirv  (G3  Mo.  517)  lOGO 

V.  Joliiistoii  (;jy  N.  J.  Eq.  49.;])  1175 

■    V.  Keith  (72  Ala.  121)  197 

V.  Moor  (G;j  Me.  44.J)  795 

V.  O'Uiordaii  (G5  Cal.  .3G8)  rS-i:) 

V.  Pender  (5  Jones,  351)  88  I 

V.  Railroad  (91  N.  C.  308)  G28 

V.  K('d  (4  Dana,  158)  639 

V.  Scott  (ii2  III.  8G)  901 

V.  Smith  (3  Met.  Kv.  2G4)  371 

V.  State  (17  Ela.  40fi)  214 

v.  Williams  (34  Ind.  547)  121 

Balch  V.  Hooper  (32  Minn.  158)  583,  748,  1128 

V.  Smith  (12  N.  H.  437)  54 

Baldo/.ier  (,-.  Ilavnes  (57  Iowa.  083)  271 

15aldrid<,^e  v.  Scott  (48  Te.x.  178)  1079 

Baldwin  i\  Ashbv  (54  Ala.  82)  83G 

V.  IJaldwin  (22  lieav.  41-i)  'J8 

V.  Baldwin  (7  xM.  J.  Eq.  211)  8:)3 

V.  Baldwin  (81  Va.  405)  67,  G8 

17.  Bnford  (4  Yerg.  IG)  571 

V.  Carleton  (15  La.  394)  HOG 

V.  DonghertA-  (39  Iowa,  50)  796 

V.  Sheldon  (48  Mich.  580)  970 

V.  Standish  (7  Cnsh.  207)  554,  550 

V.  Timmins  (3  Grav,  302)  348 

V.  Tuttle  (23  Iowa,"OG)  8o0 

Baldwine  i'.  Spriu'i^s  (05  Md.  373)       105,  lOG 

V.  State  (12  .Mo.  223)  41 

Baldv's  Appeal  (40  l>a.  St.  328)  175 

Bales  V.  Elder  ai8  III.  43G)  l.jJ 

Ball  V.  Hall  (3  South  K.,  La.  644)  873 

17.  Brown  (Bai.  Ch.  374)  UOJ 

V.  First  National  Bank  (80  Kv.  .501)    63  ;, 

637,  1009,  1142 

V.  Hawis  (4  Mvl.  &  Cr.  2G4)        732,  lOJG 

Ballantine  i7.  Proudfoot  (62  Wis.  216)     31,  34 

Ballanrvne  v.   rurner  (G  Jones  Eq.  224)      873 

Ballard" (7.  Ballard  (18  Pick.  41)  935,  939 

V.  Charlesworth  (1  Deni.  501)  524 

Ballentine's  Estate  (45  Cal.  GOG)  202 

Estate  (Mvr.  86)  202,  1145,  1148 

Ballentine  v.  Povner  (2  Havw.  110)  230 

V.  Wood  (42  N.  J.  Eq.'5.52)  9.37 

Ralliet's  Appeal  (14  Pa.  St.  451)  9G6 

Ballon  17.  Tilton  (52  N.  H.  605)  835 

Baltimore  Co.  v.  Kitchie  (31  Md.  191)         022 

Bancroft  v.  Andrews  (6  Cash.  493)     394,  1194 

17.  Curtis  (108  Mass.  47)  609 

Bane  v.  Wick  (14  Oh.  St.  505)  171,  111)3 

Banes  v.  Gordon  (9  Pa.  St.  421)  1064 

Bank  v.  Alexander  (85  N.  C.  352)  859 

17.  Carpenter  (7  Oh.  pt.  1,  p.  2i)  112!) 

17,  Fairbank  (49  N.  H.  131)  857 

Bankhead  r.  Hubbard  (14  Ark.  298)     5.,'2,  543 

Bank  of  Alabama  v.  ILioks  (2  Port.  271)     792 

Bank  of  Bri-jliti.n  r.  Uusscll(13  Allen,  221)  G75 

Bank  of  Hamilton  c.  Dndley  (2  Pet.  492)  1051 

Bank  of  Lansingbnrgh  i\  Crarv  (1  Barb. 

542)  ■  597 

Bank  of  Lonisville  r.  Board  (83  Kv.  219)    444 
Bank  of  Mi^sonri  r.  White  (23  M(">.  342)     693 
Bank  of  Mobile  v.  Smith  (14  Ala.  416)        809 
Bank  of  Montgomery*.  Plannett  (37  Ala. 
222)  "  842 , 


Page 
Bank  of  Newburgli  v.  Seymour  (14  John. 

219)  .336 

Bank  uf  Orange  i7.  Kidder  (20  Vt.  519)      865 
Bank  of  Poiighkeepsie  t7.  Ilasbrouck  (G 

N.  Y.  216)  1156,  125,') 

Bank  of  the  State  i-.  Gibbs  (3  M.  Co.  377)    773 

Bank  of  Iroy  v.  Topping  (9  Wend.  273)    795 

t'.   idpping  (13  Wend.  557)  795 

Bank  of  Ukiah  ?7.  Shoemake  (G7  Cal.  147)   838 

Bank  of  United  States  v.  Beverlv  (1  How. 

134)  ■  1016 

I-.  Burke  (4  Blackf.  141)      032,  633,  1070 

V.  Dandridge  (12  Wheat.  64)  560 

V.  Moss  (6  How.  U.  S.  31)  336 

V.  Planters'  Baidc  (9  Wheat.  904)         773 

Banks  )-.  Amnion  (27  Pa.  St.  172)  1078 

V.  Banks  (65  Mo.  432)  iil 

V.  Banks  (2  Th.  &  C.  483)  262 

17.  Machcn  (40  Miss.  250)  677 

V.  Sutton  (2  P.  Wms.  700)  218 

Bannatvne  v.  Bannatyne  (14  Eng.  L.  & 

Eq.  581)  c2 

Banta  v.  Moore  (15  N.  J.  Eq.  97)  360 

Bantz  V.  Bantz  (52  ^U.  683)  112G,  1144 

liaptist  Association  r.  Hart  (4  Wheat.  1 )     920 

Baptist  Church  17.  Roberts  (2  Pa.  St.  110)     91 

Baptist  Conven-ion  r.  Ladd  (58  Vt.  95)     1010 

r.  Ladd  (59  Vt.  5)  893 

Baraclid'e  i7.  Griscom  (1  N.  J.  L.  165)         792 

Barasien  i7.  Odum  (17  Ark.  122)  428,  429 

Barbee  v.  Perkins  (23  La.  An.  331)  32.) 

Barber,  Goods  of  ( L.  R.  1 1  Prob.  D.  78)     1015 

V.  Babel  (.36  Cal.  11)  212 

V.  Barber  (3  Mvl.  &  Cr.  G88)      937,  1008 

17.  Bush  (7  Mass.  510)  523 

V.  Converse  '1  Redf.  330)  530,  571 

17.  Eno  (2  Root,  150)  465 

17.  Slade  (30  Vt.  191)  039 

V.  Williams  (74  Ala.  .331)  203,  2.57 

Barbero  r.  Thurman  (49  111.  283)  826 

Barbour  v.  Barbour  (46  IMe.  9)  243 

r.  De  Forest  (95  N.  Y.  13)  918 

Barcliy's  Estate  (11  Phila.  123)  118,  765 

liarclav  v.  Kimsev  (72  Ga.  725)  5G8 

Barclift  17.  Treece  (77  Ala.  528)  .329,  362 

Barcroft  r.  Snodgrass  (1  Cold.  4-30)     286,  283 

Barings  v.  Willing  (4  Wash.  U.  S.  C.  C. 

248)  740 

Barker,  Ex  parte  (2  Leigh,  719)  526,  569 

Goods  of  (1  Curt.  592)  530 

In  re  (2,Iohn.  Ch.  2i3)  32 

Succession  of  (10  La    An.  28)  1154 

17.  Barker  (3G  N.  J.  Eq.  259)  490 

1'.  Barker  (14  Wis.  131)  330 

I'.  Bell  (46  Ala.  216)  112 

17.  Comins  (110  Jlass.  477)  41,  478 

17.  Koneman  (13  Cal.  9)  60:1 

1'.  Kunkel  (10  111.  App.  407)  348 

V.  Parker  (17  Mass.  504)  246 

r.  Parker  (1  T.  R.  295)  281 

1'.  Pearce  (30  Pa.  St.  173)  895 

Barkesdale  v.  Hopkins  (23  Ga.  332)  100 

Barksdale  v.  Barksdalc  (12  Leigh,  535)       96 

V.  Cobb  (16  Ga.  13)  556 

V.  Garrett  (64  Ala.  277)  273,  274 

Barlage  i7.  Railway  (54  Mich.  564)     622,  714, 

1185,  1186,  1242 

Barnard  r.  Edwards  (4  X.  H.  107)  273 

r.  Fall  River  Bank  (135  Mass.  326)      269 

V.  Greijorv  (3  Dev.  223)  419 

V.  Pumfrett  (2  Mvl.  &  Cr.  63)  991 


XXXVIll 


TABLE    OF   CASES. 


Barnawell  v.  Smitli  (5  Jones  Eq.  1G8)       8-iJ, 

H88 
Barnes  v.  Barnes  (CO  Me.  286)  37.  46 

V.  Brasliear  (2  B.  Mon.  'MO)  ;!08 

V.  Uow  (.^9  Vt.  b-M)  8U 

V.  (ireciizebach  (1  Edw,  Cli.  41)  8J9 

V.  Hanks  (55  Vt.  317)  971,  972 

r.  Husou  (tJU  Barb.  5!J8)  940 

V.  .laniagin  (12  Sni.  &  M.  108)  791 

V.  Mowry  (11  K.  1.  42i))  854,  855 

V.  Kyder  (3  McLean.  a74)  8(i7 

V.  Underwood  (54  Ga.  87)  684 

Barueit's  Appeal  (104  I'a.  St.  342)     935,  930, 

938,  985 

Laraett  v.  Kincaid  (2  I.ans.  320)  1036 

V.  Tarrence  (23  Ala.  4G3)  1127 

V.  Wolf  (70  111.  70)  1030 

Barnevr.  Chittenden  (2  Green.  105)  472 

t'.'Saunders  ( 10  Huw.  U.  S.  535)  707, 1138 

Banihart  i'.  Smith  (80  N.  C.  473)  31 

Baruhizel  v.  Eerrell  (47  Ind.  335)  140 

Barnitz  v.  Casey  (7  Cr.  450)  903 

Barnslev,  Ex  parte  (3  Atk.  108)  32 

Barnuni  v.  Baltimore  (02  Md.  275)      913,  958 

V.  Uonghton  (55  Conn.  117)  101 

V.  FarlhiniT  (40  How.  Pr.  25)  GIO 

Ban-  V.  Galloway  (1  McLean,  470)  277 

V.  Gravbill  '{Vi  Pa.  St   390)  470 

Barrett  r.  Barrett  (8  Me.  340)  300 

V.  Durham  (5  S.  E.  R.  102)  190 

V.  Morriss  (33  Grat.  273)  1214,  1222 

V.  Plvmpton  (13  Mass.  454)  620 

V.  Richardson  (70  N.  C.  429)  214 

Barron  v.  Barron  (24  Vt.  375)  611 

V.  Burnev  (38  Ga.  204)  414,  424,  425 

Barrus  v.  Kirkland  (8  Grav,  512)  871 

Barry's  Appeal  (88  Pa.  St!  131)  376 

BarrV  v.  Barry  (15  Kan.  587)  28 

V.  Brown" (2  Dem.  309)  70,  90 

f.  Briggs  (22Micli.  201)  284 

V   Havis  (33  Mich.  515)  679 

V.  Harding  (1  Jones  &  I.at.  475)  1106 

V.  Limbert  (98  N.  Y.  300)  708,  733 

Barsalou  v.  Wri-ht  (4  Bradf.  104)  812 

Barstow  v.  Goodwin  (2  Bradf.  413)     903,  904 

V.  Spragiie  (40  N.  H.  27)  494 

Bartpe  v.  Thompson  (8  Baxt.  508)  37 

Barth  v.  Lines  (118  111.  374)  264 

Bartholomew's  Appeal  (75  Pa.  St.  169)        97 

Bartholomew  v.  YL^-nhv  (3  Phillim.  317)      61 

V.  Jackson  (20  John.  28)  823 

r.  May  (1  Atk.  487)  1100 

Bartles  Case  (33  N.  J.  Eq.  .50)  1221 

Bartlett  v.  Fitz  (.59  N.  H.  502)  1137,  1147 

V.  Hyde  (3  Mo.  490)  .-565,  427,  432 

V.  Jiineway  (4  Sandf.  Ch.  396)  242 

V.  King  (12  Mass.  537)  922 

V.  Nye  (4  ]Met.  378)  923 

V.  Parks  (I  Cash.  82)  286 

V.  Slater  (.53  Conn.  102)  1005 

V.  Sutherland  (24  Mi-s.  305)  723 

Barto  V.  Tomkins  (15  Hun,  11)  1078 

Barton,  Ex  parte  (70  N.  C.  134)  1200 

Barton's  Estate  (55  Cal.  87)  1173 

Barton's  Trust  (L.  R   5  Eq.  238)  1003 

Barton  v.  Higpins  (41  Md.  539)  359,  366 

V.  Rice  (22  Pick.  508)  1226 

V.  Robins  (3  Phillim.  455)  484 

Barwick  v.  Rackley  (45  Ala.  215)     1128,  1131 

Basan  v.  Brandon  (8  Sim.  171)  974 

Bascom  v.  Albertson  (34  N.  Y.  584)     920,  932 


Basket  0.  Hassell  (107  U.  S.  602)   116, 119, 121 

Baskin's  Ai)peal  (38  Pa.  St.  65)  190 

Bask  in  v.  Bask  in  (48  Barb.  200)  71 

Basknis  v.  Wvlds  (39  Ark.  347)  825 

Bason  v.  Holt  (2  Jones,  323)  1014 

Bass  r.  Cliambliss  (9  La.  An.  370)  099 

Bassett  r.  Bassett  (9  Bush,  090)  224 

V.  Elliott  (78  Mo.  525)  1073 

V.  Granger  (130  Mass.  174)  053 

V.  Hawk,  118  Pa.  St.  94)  901 

V.  McKenna  (52  Conn.  437)  631 

V.  Miller  (8  Md.  548)  534,  1172 

V.  Slater  (81  Mo.  75)  770,  1073 

Batchelder  r.  Russell  (10  N.  H.  39)  435 

Eatehelor,  Matter  of  (04  How.  Pr.  350)     531, 

564 

V.  Batchelor  (1  Dem.  209)  504 

Bate  V.  Bate  (11  Bush,  039)  1172 

i\  Graham  (11  N.  Y.  237)  631 

V.  Licisa  (59  Miss.  513)  495 

Bates  r.  Bates  (27  Iowa,  110)  43 

V  Bates  (97  Mass.  392)  205 

V.  Bates  (134  I\Iass.  110)        728,  917,  934 

V.  Dewson  (128  Mass.  334)  905 

V.  Elrod  (13  Lea,  156)  806,  843 

f.  Kempton  (7  Grav,  382)  119 

r.  Officer  (70  Iowa,"  343)  75 

V.  Rvberg  (40  Cal.  403)  1195 

V.  Vary  (40  Ala.  421)  348,  1146 

V.  Webb  (8  Mass.  458)  hbi 

Batson  v.  IMurrell  (10  Humph.  301)     821,  822 

Battle  V.  Speicht  (9  Ired.  L.  288)  887 

Batton  r.  Allen  (5  N.  J.  Eq.  99)  1236 

Batts  V.  Scott  (37  Tex.  59)  210 

Baucus  V.  Barr  (45  Hun,  582)  654,  1140 

V.  Barr  (107  N.  Y.  624)  654,  1140 

V.  Stoyer  (24  Hun,  109)      187,  1160,  1167 

V.  Stover  (89  N.  Y.  1)        6,54,  1140  1107 

Bauer  v.  Grav  (18  Mo.  App.  104)  1243 

Baugarth  v.  Miller  (20  Oh.  St.  541)  480 

Baum's  Succession  (9  La.  An.  412)  706 

Bauman's  Succession  (30  La.  An.  1138)   1187 

Banskett  v.  Keitt  (22  S.  C  187)  92 

Baxter  v.  Abbott  (7  Grav,  71)         37,  41,  479 

V.  Baxter  (23  S.  C.  '114)  772,  773 

V.  Burfield  (2  Strange,  1200)  087 

r.  Robinson  (11  Mich.  520)  730,  1043 

Baxter  and  Bale's  Case  (1  Leon.  90)  585 

Haveaux  v.  Baveaux  (8  Pai    333)  503 

BaVless  v.  Baviess  (4  Coldw.  359)      177,  187 

■  V.  Powers  (02  Iowa,  001)  809,  826 

Baylies  i;.  Davis  (1  I'ick.  200)  1194 

BaVliss's  Trust  (17  Sim.  178)  88! 

Bavlor  r.  Dejarnette  (13  Grat.  152)  1096 

Bavne  v.  Garrett  (17  Tex.  330)  1258 

Bazzo  V.  Wallace  (10  Neb.  293)  1199 

Beach  v.  Baldwin  (9  Conn.  476)  791 

V.  Fulton  Bank  (2  Wend.  225)  1197 

V.  Norton  (9  Conn.  182)  740,  1122 

Beadle  v.  Beadle  (2  McCra.  586)  593,  719,  728 

Beadles  v.  Alexander  (9  Baxt.  004)     475,  491 

Beaird  v.  Wolf  (23  III.  App.  486)  1155 

Beale  v.  Hall  (22  Ga.  431)  396,  631 

Beall  V.  Blake  (10  Ga.  119)  980 

V.  Darden  (4  Ired.  Eq.  76)  651 

V.  Drane  (25  Ga.  430)  921 

V.  Fox  (4  Ga.  404)  929 

V.  Holmes  (0  H.  &  J.  205)  884 

V.  New  Mexico  (16  Wall.  535)  744 

v.  Schlev  (2  Gill,  181)  1010 

Beals  V.  Crowlev  (59  Cal.  005)  122 


TABLE   OF   CASES. 


XXX IX 


Pase 

Beamoiid  v.  Lons  (Cro.  Car.  208)  387 

Bean  i'.  lUiiki-li  (4  N.  H.  550)  1200 

V.  Faniaiii  (U  1  ick.  20'J)  G85,  811 

V.  M vers  (I  Coklw.  220)  1)48 

V.  Patterson  (122  U.  S.  4!t6)  UIO 

Beane  v.  Yurbcv  (12  (Jrat.  2VJi  TO 

Beard  v.  Dudolpli  (2i)  Wis.  13tj)  613 

V.  Hale   (8  S.  W.K.  150;    S.  C.  95 

Mo.  IG)  274 

V.  Knox  (5Cal.  252)  221,  2u0 

r.  Mosulv  (.iO  Ark.  617)  153 

Beardslee  v.  Beardslee  (5  liarb.  324)  232 

Beardblev  v.  American  Society  (45  Conn. 

327)  8<J3 

V.  Selectmen  (53  Conn.  489)  !)24 

Ikaston  t'.  Fanners'  Bank  (12  IVt.  102)     771 

Beattie  v.  Abercronihle  (18  Ala.  !')  387 

Beatty  v.  Trustees  of  Societ}'  (31)  N.  J. 

Eq.  452)  893.  001,  1147 

V.  Wray  (19  Pa.  St.  316)  284 

Beaubien  v.  Cicotte  (12  Mich.  459)         41 ,  48, 

478,  471) 

r.  Ponpard  (Harr.  Ch.  200)  1058 

Beaufort  i'.  Collier  (0  Hum  ph.  487)  607 

Beaumont  v.  Fell  (2  P.  Wms.  140)  893 

r.  Keim(.50Mo.  28,  91,100 

Beauregard  v.  Lampton  (33  La.  An.  827)    522 

V.  New  Orleans  (18  How.  497)  1030 

Beazlev  r.  Den^^on  (40  Te^x.  416)  37 

Beck  t".  Beck  (04  lowa,  155)  213 

V.  McGillis  (9  Barb.  35)  973  974 

V.  Kebow  (1  P.  Wms.  94)  601 

Becker,  Matter  of  >  28  Hun,  207)  499 

V.  Lawton  (4  Dem.  341)  580 

Beckett,  In  re  (103  N.  Y.  107)  70 

Matterof  (35  Hun.  447)  70 

V.  Selover  (7  Cal.  215)  397,  713,  1033 

Becklord  r.  Parnecott  (Cro.  Eliz.  493)         112 

Beckham  r.  Newton  (21  Ga.  187)  1079 

V.  Wittkowski  (64  N.  C.  404;  30f) 

Beckton  v.  Barton    27  Beav.  99)  978 

Beddoe  v.  Wadsworth  (21  W.Mid.  120)        621 

Bedell  V  Carh  (33  N.  Y.  .581)  116 

Bedford's  Succession    38  La.  An.  244)      11!)) 

Bedloe  V.  Homer  (10  Grav,  432)  873 

Beebe  v.  Estabrook  (79  N,  Y.  240)  1224, 1225 

t.  Lockert  (6  Ark.  422)  1193 

Beebei's  Appeal  (8  Atl.  K.  191)  1120 

Beech's  Estate  (03  Cal.  458)  526 

Beecher  v.  BuckinL'ham  (18  Conn.  110)    387, 

693 

V.  Crouse  (19  Wend.  -306)  432 

Beecroft,  Curatorship  of  (28  La.  An.  824)  1125 

Beekman  r.  Beekman  (2  Dem.  635)  491 

V.  Bousor  (23  N.  Y    298)  925 

V.  Vanderveer  (3  Dem.  619)  272 

Beeler  i'.  Dunn  (3  Head.  87)  363,  370 

Beene  e.  Collenberf,-er  (38  Ala.  647)  696 

Beers  v.  Haughton  (9  Pet.  329)  202 

V.  Shannon  (73  N.  Y.  21)2)  441 

Beeson  v.  Beeson  (1  Harr.  100)  1010 

V.  Beeson  (9  Pa.  St.  279)  1087 

Beeston  v.  Brootli  (4  Madd.  161)  9.^7 

Begien  v.  Freeman  (75  Ind.  398)  433 

Belirens  v.  Leucht  (2  Cin.  217)  758 

Beirne  v.  Imboden  (14  Ark.  237)  809 

Belcher's  Will  (06  N.  C.  51)  00 

Belcher  v.  Belcher  (12  Atl.  2-30)  968,  990 

V.  Branch  (11  K.  L  226)  720,  1142 

Belden  v.  Meeker  (47  N.  Y.  307)  568 

B.ilford  V.  Crane  ( 16  N.  J.  Eq.  205)  609 


Belfour  r.  Ranev  (8  Ark.  479) 
Bell's  Appeal  (66  I'a.  St.  498) 
Appeal  (71  Pa.  St.  471) 
E>tate  (25  Pa.  St.  92) 
Bell,  E.x  parte  (14  Ark.  70) 

Goods  of  (L.  K.  4  P.  D.  85) 

r.  Andrews  (34  Ala.  538) 

V.  Armstrong,-  (1  Add.  365) 

V.  Hell  (1  Ga.637) 

v.  Bell  (25  S.  C.  149) 

V.  Bell  (4  Southern  \l.  189) 

r.  Fleniint;(12N.  J.  Kfj.  13) 


Page 
690 
720 
350 
G(J9 
1105 
504 
829 
501 
639 
727 
212 
858,  8.j9 
V    Fotheriiili  (L.  R.  2  P".  &  D.  148)        94 
r.  Green '(38  Ark.  78)  1054 

V.  Hall  (70  Ala.  .546  i  166,  189 

V.  Ilewett  (24  Ind.  280)  680 

V.  Humphrev  (8  W.  Va.  1)  718 

V.  McMaster  (29  Hunt.  272)  479 

V.  Mousset  (71  Ind.  347)  1196 

V.  Nealv  (1  Bai.  312)  227 

V.  Nichols  (38  Ala.  078)  3G8,  073 

V.  People  (94  111.  2.30)  551 

V.  Phvu  (7  Ves.  453)  235 

r.  Scammon  (15  N.  H.  .381)  950 

V.  Schwartz  (37  Tex.  572)  198 

V.  Speight  (11  Humph.  451)  751 

V.  Timiswood  (2  Phillim.  22)  529 

Bell  County  v.  Alexander  (22  Tex.  3.50)    922, 

929,  951 
Bellerjean  v.  Kotts  (4  N.  J.  L.  359)  1180 

Bellew  1-.  Jockleden  (1  Roll.  Abr.  929)       792 
Bellingers.  Foid  (21  Barlj.  311)  384,  411 

Belloc'q,  Succession  of  (28  La.  An.  154)  112"i, 

1127 

Bellows  V.  Cheek  (20  Ark.  424)  812 

V.  Goodall  (32  N.  H.  97)  423 

V.  McGinnis  (17  Ind.  04)  1068 

V.  Sowles  (.57  Vt.  104)  960 

Belslay  v.  Engel,  (107  111.  182)  901 

Bern  is  v.  Bemis  (13  Grav,  559)  839 

Bender  v.  Dietrick  (7  W   ^'  S.  284)  882 

Benedict  i-.  Ball  (38  N.  .1.  Fq   48)  899 

V.  Bonnot  (39  La.  An.  972)  1204 

V.  :\Iontgomerv  (7  W   &  S.  238)  5()0 

V.  Webb  (98  N.  Y.  460)  884 

Benescli  v.  Clark  (49  Md.  4971  949 

Bengough  v.  Edndge  (1  Sim.  173)  881 

Benjamin  v.  DeGrot  (1  Demo,  151)  385 

V.  Dimmick  (4  Redf.  7)  978 

V.  LeBaron  (15  Oh.  517)  429,  0-32 

Bennet  v.  Bradford  (1  Coldw.  471)  758 

Bennett's  Appeal  (33  Conn.  214)        854,  855 

Bennett  v.  Coldwell  (8  Baxt.  483)    1040,  1080 

«j   Dawson  (15  Ark.  412)  12(i8 

V.  Dawson  (18  Ark.  334)        817,  818.  819 

V.  (i.-iddis  (79  Ind.  347)  1024 

«.  Graham  (71  Ga.  211)  .548 

V.  Harms  (51  Wis.  251)  225 

v   Hutchinson  (11  Kan.  398)  28 

V.  Ives  (30  Conn.  32it)  414,  424,  760 

V.  Tiernav  (78  Kv-  580)  336 

V.  Woolfolk  (15  Ga.  213)  287 

Benoist  V.  Murrin  (58  :Mo.  307)  31.  34 

Benoit  t'.  Brill  (7  Sm.  &  M.  32)  12-31 

Benslev  v.  Haeberle  (20  Mo.  App.  648)     1200 

Benson.  Matter  of  (96  N.  Y.  499)        273,  944 

t?.  Bruce  (4  Des.  463)  1164 

f.  Maude  (6  Madd.  15)  1005 

V.  Rice  (2  N.  c^-  McC.  5V7)  568 

V.  Wolf  (43  N.  J.  L.  78)  402 

Bent's  Appeal  (35  Conn.  523)  485,  502 


xl 


TABLE   OF  CASES. 


Paf;e 

Bent's  Appeal  (38  Conn.  2G)  485 

Bent  r.  Bent  (44  Vt.  555)  (ill 

V.  Weeks  (44  Me.  45)  ■&2'.> 

Bentham  v.  Wiltshire  (4  Mad.  44)  710 

Bentlev's  Estate  ('J  Pliila.  ;J44)  118U 

Berauf's  Succession  (21  La.  An.  000)  52;j 

Berfuse's  Succession  (y4  La.  An.  b'M)         503 

Herg  V.  Anderson  (72  Pa.  St.  87)  949 

Bergey's  Appeal  (GO  Pa.  St.  408)  612 

Bergin  v.  McFarland  (26  N.  H.  533)  636 

Berkey  v.  Judd  (27  Minn.  475)  777 

liermingham  v.  For.sythe  (26  S.  C.  358)    1206 

Bernes  v.  Weisser  (2  Bradf.  212)  777 

Beniheimer  v.  Calhoun  (44  Miss.  426)  340,  814 

Berry  v.  Bellows  (30  Ark.  198)  577 

V.  Folkes  (60  Miss.  576)  283 

V.  Furhman  (30  Iowa,  402)  274 

«;.  Graddv  (1  Met.  Kv.  553)  787 

V.  Hamilton  (10  B.  Mon.  129)  76 

V.  Hamilton  (12  B.  Mon.  191)  508 

V.  Parkes  (3  Sm.  &  M.  625)  084 

Bertrand  v.  Elder  (23  Ark.  494)  609 

Berwick  v.  Halsev  (4  Kedf.  18)  1138 

Besan(;on  v.  Brownson  (39  Mich.  388)       404. 

498,  561,  563 

Best  V.  Farris  (21  111.  App.  49)  902 

V.  Jenks  (123  111.  447)  207,  212 

V.  Vedder  (58  How.  Pr.  187)  025 

Betha  v.  McColl  (5  Ala.  308)  432 

Bethel  v.  Stanhope  (1  Cro.  Eliz.  810)  415,  422 

Bethell  v.  Moore  (2  Dev.  &  B.  L.  311)  93,  475 

Bettes  V.  Magoon  (85  Mo.  580)  612 

Belts  V.  Belts  (4  Abb.  N.  C.  317)      727,  1174 

V.  Blackwell  (2  St.  &  P.  373)  697 

r.  Harper  (39  Oh.  St.  639)  58 

Bevan  v.  Cooper  (72  N.  Y.  317)  352 

V.  Tavlor  (7  Serg.  &  R.  397)  154 

Bevers  v.  Park  (88  N.  C.  450)  843 

Bewick  V.  Whittield  (3  P.  Wms.  206)         597 

Biavs  V.  Roberts  (68  Md.  510)  1242 

Bibb  V.  Averv  (45  Ala.  691)  372 

r.  Mitchell  (58  Ala.  657)  856 

Bible  Society  v.  Oaklev  (4  Dem.  450)       1183 

Bice  V.  Hair(120  111.  597)  30,  474 

Biddison  v.  Mosely  (57  Md.  89)      1200,  1202, 

1205 

Biddle's  Appeal  (99  Pa.  St.  278)  1004 

V.  Biddle  (.36  Md.  630)  81 

V.  Carraway  (6  Jones  Eq.  95)  1098 

V.  Wilkins'(l  Pet.  686)  -300 

Bieber's  Appeal  (11  Pa.  St.  157)  516,  525,  574 

Biedennan  v.  Seymour  (3  Beav.  308)        1094 

Bienvenu  v.  Parker  (30  La.  An.  100)       1030, 

1033 

Bigelow  V.  Bigelow  (4  Oh.  138)  1 1 40 

V.  Folger'(2  Met.  255)  827 

V.  Gillott  (123  Mass.  102)  93,  1018 

V.  Moron  g  (103  Mass.  287)  147 

V.  Paton'(4  Mich.  170)  045 

V.  Poole  (10  Gray,  104)  1220 

Bigge  V.  Bigge  (3  Notes  of  Cas.  601)  89 

Bigu^s  r.  Angus  (3  Dem.  93)  89,  96,  100 

^v.  Beckel  (12  Oh.  St.  49)  1043 

Billings's  Estate  (04  ("al.  427)  79 

Billings  r.  Hanver  (05  Cal.  .593)  22 

V.  Taylor  (10  Pick.  400)  229 

Billingslca  v.  Henry  (20  Md.  282)  11.59 

V.  Moore  (14  Ga.  370)  953 

Billing-slev  v.  Harris  (17  Ala.  214)  346 

Bills  V.  Scott  (49  Tex.  4.30)  577,  1205 

Biudley's  Appeal  (09  Pa.  St.  295)  1029 


Pafje 

Bingham,  In  re  (32  Vt.  329)  1182,  12.50 

Bingham's  Appeal  (04  Pa.  St   345)  490 

Bingham  v.  Crenshaw  (34  Ala.  083)  42(i 

V.  Maxey  (15  III.  295)  1077 

Binion  v.  Miller  (27  Ga.  78)  1151 

Binnerrnan  v.  Weayer  (8  Md.  517)  525 

Binns  V.  State  (35  Ark.  118)  334 

Biou,  Goods  of  (3  Curt.  379)  400 

Bird  V.  Bird  (77  Me.  499)  280 

V.  Graham  (1  Ired.  Eq.  196)  1247 

V.  Jones  (5  La.  An.  643)  583 

Rirdsall  i;   Api)legate  (20  N.  J.  L.  244)      882 

Bird  well  o.  Kauftman  (25  Tex.  189)  820, 1131. 

1-258 
Birkholm  v.  Wardell  (42  N.  J.  Eq.  337)  1189 
Biimmgham  v.  Kir  wan   (2  Sch.  &  Lef. 

444)  206 

V.  Lesan  (77  Me.  494)  952 

Birnie  v.  Main  (29  Ark.  591)  237 

Biscoe  V.  Madden  (17  Ark.  533)  842 

V.  Moore  (12  Ark.  77)  699 

Bishop  V.  Bisho])  (UN.  Y.  123)  604 

V.  Boyle  (9  Ind.  169)  239 

V.  Curphey  (60  Miss.  22)  647 

V.  Dayenport  (58  111.  105)  149,  1221 

V.  Dillard  (49  Ark.  285)  828 

r.  Lalouette  (67  Ala.  197)  441 

V.  O'Conner  (69  111.  431)  1077 

Bissell  V.  Axtell  (  2  Vern.  47)   798, 1117,  1253 

V.  Briggs  (9  Mass.  462)  326 

V.  Taylor  (41  Mich.  702)  242 

Bissett  V.  Antrobus  (4  Sim.  512)  7(3 

Bitner  i\  Bitner  (05  Pa.  St   347)  35 

Bilzer  V.  Hahn  (14  S.  &  R.  232  i  994 

Black's  Estate  (Tuck.  145)        737,  1153,  1240 

Black  V.  Black  (4  Brad.  174)  320 

V.  Black  (34  Pa.  St.  354)  344 

V.  Blakely  (2  McCord  Ch-  1)  1104 

V.  Bush  (7  B.  Mon.  210)  856 

V.  CartmcU  (10  B.  Jlon.  188)  903 

V.  Curran  (14  Wall.  403)  195 

V.  Dressell  (20  Kan.  153)  731 

V.  Meek  (1  ind.  180)  1048 

I-   Richards  (95  Ind.  184)  57 

V.  Whjtall  (9  N.  J.  Eq.  572)      669.  1131, 

1214,  1216 

D.  White  (13  S.  C.  37)  1140 

Blackborough  v.  Dayis  (1  Salk.  38)  788 

Blackburn  v.  Crawfords  (3  Wall.  175)        2i,0 

Blackerby  v.  Holtou  (5  Dana,  520)  1123 

Blackint.in  v   Blackinton  (110  Mass.  461)  173 

Blacklaws  v-  Milne  (82  111.  505)  157 

Blackler  v.  Boott  (114  Mass.  24)  1236 

Blackman  v.  Wadsworth  (65  Iowa,  80)       939 

Blackmer  r.  Mercer  (2  Saund.  402  a)  797 

Blackstone  v.  Blackstone  (3  Walts,  335)    973 

Black.stone  Bank  v.  Dayis  (21  Pick.  42)      955 

Blackwell  v.  Broughton  (50  Ga.  390)  181 

Blain  ))    H.irrison  (11  Hi.  384)      237,254,255 

Blair  v  Thorp  (33  Tex.  38)  210 

V.  Wilson  (57  Iowa,  177)  207 

Blake  r.  Blake  (85  Ind.  65)  149 

V.  Blake  (53  Miss,  182)  632 

r.  Chambers  (4  Neb   90)  1123 

V.  Dexter  (12  (lush.  559)  392,  719 

V.  Griswold  (104  N.  Y.  613)  676 

V.  Kimball  (22  Vt.  632)  1202 

V.  Pegram  (109  Mass.  541)  1126 

V.  Rourke  (38  N.  W   R.  392)  39.  47 

t'.  StoiK^  (27  Vt.  475)  901 

Blakely's  AViU  (48  Wis.  294)  35 


TABLE   OF   CASES. 


Xli 


Pape 

Blakcly  v.  Carter  (70  Wis.  540)  ;J88 

V.  Frazier  (20  S.  C.  144)  5();i 

Blanchard  v.  Hlanclianl  (1  Allen,  223)        T.JO 

V.  Blanchard  (32  Vt.  G2)  68,  89,  HO 

V.  Chapman  (22  III.  App.  341)  870 

t;.  Nestle  (3  Deiiio,  37)  42 

V.  Sheldon  (43  Vt.  512)  120 

V.  Williamson  (70  III.  647)  816, 1185, 12,J5 

Blanchin  v.  Martinez  (18  La.  An.  699)     1201 

Bhuick  V.  Morrison  (4  Uem   297)         404,  535 

Bland  r.  Bland  (103  111.  11)  873 

V.  Hartsoe  (65  N.  C.  204)  1040,  1153 

V.  Muncaster  (24  Miss.  62)  704 

V.  Umstead  (23  I'a.  St.  316)  688 

Blandv  V.  Asher  (72  Mo.  27)  204 

Blanev's  Estate  (34  N.  W.  768)  267 

BianeV  v.  Blaney  (1  Ciish.  107)  968 

Blank,  Matter  of  (2  Redf.  443)  400 

Blank's  Appeal  (3  Grant's  Cas.  192)  1150 

Blanton  i-.  Kim,-  (2  How.  Miss.  8.56)  340 

Blasini  v.  Blasini  (30  La.  An.  1388)  351 

BlassinRamc  v.  Ro.se  (34  Ga.  418)  192 

Blatchford  v.  Newberrv  (99  111.  11)     267,  951 

Blnvs  V.  Roberts  (68  Md.  510)  1247,  1248 

Bleaklev's  Estate  (5  Whart.  361)  535 

Bleecker  v.  Hennion  (23  N.  J.  Eq.  123)    254. 

256 

V.  Lvnch  (1  Bradf.  458)  42 

Blewitt  V.  Nicholson  (2  Fla.  200)  440 

Blight  V.  Blight  (51  Pa.  St.  420)       638,  1011 

V.  Rochester  (7  Wheat.  535)  22 

Bliss  V.  Amer.  Bib.  Soc.  (2  Allen,  334)       923 

V.  Olmstead  (3  Dem.  273)  1006 

Bliven  v.  Sevmour  (88  N.  Y.  469)  987 

Blize  V.  Castlio  (8  Mo.  App.  290)  336 

Blizzard  v.  Filler  (20  Oh.  479)  749 

Blociier  V.  Ilostetter  (2  Gr.  Cas.  288)  63 

Block  V.  Block  (3  Mo.  594)  111 

Blockley  v.  Blockley  (L.  R.  29  Ch.  D. 

2.50)  1214,  1218 

Blodgett  V.  American  National  Bank  (49 

Conn  9)  282 

V.  Hitt  (29  Wis.  169)  .3.30,1031,1052,1080 

Blood  V.  Blood  (23  Pick.  80)  244 

V.  Havnian  (13  Met.  231)  703,  1080 

Bloodgood  V.  Bruen  (2  Bradf.  8)        658,  1069 

Blood  worth  v.  Stevens  (51  Miss.  475)      636, 

6-37 

Bloom  V.  Gate  (7  Lea,  471)  1022 

Bloomer  v.  Bloomer  (2  Bradf.  339)     105,  115, 

126,  127,  1151 

V.  Waldron  (3  Hill,  N.  Y.  -361)  732 

Blount  V.  Burrow  (4  Bro.  C.  C.  72)  118 

V.  Pritchard  (88  N.  C.  446)  10-37 

Blower  V.  Morret  (2  Ves.  Sr.  420)  986 

Bloxham  (•.  Hooker  (19  Fla.  163).       See 

Governor  v.  Honker. 
Blue  V.  Blue  (38  III.  9)  201 

Bluehill  Academvr.  Ellis  (.32  Me.  260)      854 
Bluett  V.  Nicholson  (1  Fla.  384)  12.39 

Bluevelt  v.  De  Novelles  (25  Hun,  550)     1102 
Blum  V.  Carter  (63  Ala.  235)  201 

Blume  V.  Hartman  (115  Pa.  St.  -32)  50 

Blvdenburgh  v.  Lowrv  (4  Cr.  C.  C.)  370 

BlVthe  V.  Hoots  (72  N.  C.  575)         73.5,  1024, 

1037,  1047 
Board    of  Commissioners  v.  Rogers  (55 

Ind.  297)  922 

Board  of  Education  v.  Edson  (18  Oh.  St. 

221)  931 

Board,  &c.  v.  Ladd  (26  Oh.  St.  210)  888 


P.ITC 

Boardman  v.  Woodman  (47  N.  11.  120)       34, 

35,  40,  41 
Bobb's  Succession  (27  La.  An.  344)  350,  547 
Bobo  V.  Vaiden  (20  S.  C.  271)  5.50 

Bockover  v.  Ayres  (22  N.  J.  Eq.  13)  1028 
Bodciiheimer's  Succession    (35  La.   An. 

1034)  542,  545 

Bodle  V.  Hulse  (5  Wend.  313)  739 

Boerum  v.  Schenck  (41  N.  Y.  182)  702,  703 
Bofenschen's  Succession  (29  La.  An.  711)  1190 
Botil  V.  Fisher  (3  Rich.  Eq.  1)  1.55 

Bogaii  r.  Camp  (30  Ala.  276)  695 

Bogart  r.  Van  Velsor  (4  Kdw.  Ch.  718)  709 
Bogert  V.  Hertell  (4  Hill,  N.  Y.  492)  718,  734, 

1070 

V.  Furmon  (10  Pai.  496)  596 

V.  Indianapolis  (13  Ind.  134)  591 

Boggs  r.  Bard  (2  Rawle,  102)  643 

V.  Branch  Bank  (10  Ala.  970)  806 

V.  Hamilton  (  2  Mill.  381)  541 

Bogv  V.  Roberts  (48  Ark.  17)  1218 

Bo'hannon  v.  Madison  (31  Miss.  348)  696 

Bohanon  r.  Walcot  (1  How.  Miss.  3o6)  91,  100 

Bohn  r.  Sheppard  (4  Munf.  403)  12(i2 

Bohon  r.  Barrett  (79  Kv.  378)  876 

Boland's  E.state  (55  Caf.  310)  330,  1035,  1090 

Bolles  r.  Harris  (34  Oh.  St.  38)  81,  489 

Boiling  0.  Jones  (67  Ala.  508)  1043,  1077 

Holman  v.  Overall  (80  Ala.  451)  58 

Bolt  V.  Dawkins  (16  S.  C.  198)  844 

Bolton  V.  Jacks  (6  Rob.  N.  Y.  166)     448,  453 

V.  Whitmore  (12  Mo.  App.  581)  748 

Boltz  V.  Stolz  (11  Oh.  St.  540)  2.55 

Bomford  o.  Grimes  (17  Ark.  567)         690,  768, 

1144 

Bompart  v.  Lucas  (21  Mo.  598)  684 

Bond  V.  Bond  (10  Lea,  306)  246 

r.  Clav  (2  Head,  379)  348 

r.  Coiiwav  (11  Md.  512)  639 

V.  Ramsev  (89  111.  29)  1077 

V.  Seawefl  (3  Burr.  1773) 

V.  Wat.son  (22  Ga.  637)  1058 

Bone  V.  Sparrow  (11  La.  An.  185)  639 

Bonham  v.  Bonham  (33  N.  J.  Eq.  476)       986 

V   Bonham  (38  N.  J.  Eq.  419)    986,  1010 

Boniface  v.  Scott  (3  S.  &  R.  351)  780 

Bonifant  v.  Greentield  (Cro.  Eliz.  80)         721 

Bonner  v.  Greenlee  (6  Ala.  411)  1059 

V.  Y'onng  (68  Ala.  35)  952 

Boody  V.  Emerson  (17  N.  H.  577)  1034 

Boofter  V.  Rogers  (9  Gill,  44)  84 

Book  V.  Book  (104  Pa.  St.  240)  54,  61 

Booker  v.  Armstrong  (93  Mo.  49)     677,  1138, 

1158,  11.59 
V.  Booker  (5  Humph.  505)  950 

Boone  )■.  Boone  (3  Har.  &  IMcH.  95)  270 

Boor  V.  Lowrey  (103  Ind.  468)  625 

Booream  v.  Wells  (19  N.  J.  Eq.  87)  718 

Booth  V.  Ammermann  (4  Bradf.  129)        1005 
V.  Goodwin  (29  Ark.  633)      196,  200,  214, 

215 

V.  Kitchen  (7  Hun,  255)  497 

V.  Northrop  (27  Conn.  325)  675 

V.  Patrick  (8  Conn.  106)  631,  661 

V.  Radford  (57  Mich.  357)  760,  765 

V.  Starr  (5  Dav,  419)  1271 

r.  Stebbins  (47  Miss.  161)  268 

r.  Timonev  (3  Dem.  416)  495 

Rootle  V.  Blundell  (19  Ves.  404)  1104 

Boozer  v.  Addison  (2  Rich.  Eq.  273)  639 

Borden  v.  Fowler  (14  Ark.  471)  805 


xlii 


TABLE   OF   CASES. 


Pafro 

Borden  r.  Jenks  (140  Mass.  5G2)         985,  98G 

V.  State  (11  Ark.  519)  329 

Borer  v.  (Jhapnuin  (119  U.  S.  587)     3:U,  357, 

847,  12G4 
Borland  v.  Dean  (4  Mason,  174)  309 

Borueinan  v.  Sidlinger  (15  Me.  42D)  118.  119, 

122,  127 
Borst  r.  Corev  (IG  Barb.  13G)  (il)9 

Bosio's  Estate  (2  Aslini.  437)  G!)2 

Boson  V.  Stathiun  (1  Eden  Cb.  508)  910 

lU.st  V.  Bost  (87  N.  C.  477)  478 

Bustick  V.  Blades  (59  Md.  231)  9(12 

Boston  V.  Bovlston  (4  Mass.  318)  113G 

V.  Murrav  (94  Mo.  175)  81G 

Boston  Safe  Deposit  &  Trust  Co.  v.  Plum- . 

mer  (142  Mass.  257)  9GG,  988 

Bostwiek,  Matter  of  (4  .Jolin.  Ch.  100)      1012 

V.  Atkins  (3  N.  Y.  53)  10U2 

V.  Beach  (103  N.  Y.  414)  255 

V.  Bostwick  (71  Wis.  273)  823 

V.  Skinner  (80  111.  147)  328,  103G 

Roswell  V.  Towuseiid  (57  Ala.  308)  1132 

Bosworth  V.  Smith  (9  K.  I.  G7)  842 

Bothwell  I'.  Dobbs  (59  Ga.  787)  991 

Bott  V.  Barr  (95  Ind.  243)  757 

Botts  V.  Fitzpatrick  (5  B.  Mon.  397)  793 

Boudinot  V.  Bradford  (2  Dall.  266)  96 

Boudreaux,  Succession  of  (6  La.  An.  78)  1037 

Bougere,  Succession  of  (30  La.  An.  422)    400 

BouKhton  V.  Flint  (74  N.  Y.  476)       350,  975, 

*  1189,  1191 

Bouknight  v.  Brown  (16  S.  C.  155)  911 

Boulton  V.  Scott  (3  N.  .J.  Eq.  231)  1131 

Bourke  V.  Wilson  (38  La.  An.  320)  82 

Bourne  v   Stevenson  (58  Me.  499)       661,  606 

Bouslough  V.  Bouslough  (68  Pa.  St.  495)   631 

Boutiller  v.  Steamboat  (8  Minn.  97)  627 

Boutte's  Succession  (32  La.  An.  556)  549 

Bowden  v.  Pierce  (73  Cal.  459)  428,  1U85 

V.  Pierce  (15  Pac.  64)  428 

Bowditch  V.  Andrew  (8  Allen,  339)  906 

Bowdlear  v.  Bowdlear  (112  Mass.  184)        140 

Bowdoin  v.  Holland  (10  Cush.  17)  441 

Bowen  v.  Allen  (113  III.  53)  893 

V.  Bond  (80  III.  351)  1050 

V.  Bowen  (2  Bradf.  336)  825 

V.  Bowen  (.38  Oh.  St.  426)  354 

V.  Collins  (15  Ga.  100)  235 

V.  Crow  (16  Neb.  5.56)  287 

V.  Dean  (110  Mass  438)  948 

V.  Dorrance  (12  K.  L  269)  987 

V.  Evans  (70  Iowa,  368)    865,  12-36,  12;J9 

V.  Goranflo  (73  Pa.  St.  357)  76 

V.  Johnson  (6  Ind.  110)  887,  890 

V.  Johnson  (5  R.  I.  112)  498 

V.  Montgonierv  (48  Ala.  353)  678 

r.Payton  (14 "R.  1.2.57)  1102 

V.  Preston  (48  Ind.  367)  221,  261 

V.  Richardson  (1-33  Mass.  293)  741 

V.  Shav  (105  111.  132)  697 

Bowers's  Appeal  (84  Pa.  St.  311)  1198 

Bowers  v.  Bowers  (53  Ind.  430)  109 

V.  Bowers  (26  Pa.  St.  74)  533 

V.  Emerson  (14  Barb.  652)  393 

V.  Hammond  (1.39  Mass.  360)       332,  865 

V.  Hurd  (10  Mass.  427)  121 

V.  Keesecker  (14  Iowa,  301)  621 

V.  Porter  (4  Pick.  198)  901 

V.  Smith  (10  Pai.  193)  353,  354 

V.  Williams  (34  Miss.  324)         1144,  1151 

Bowersox's  Appeal  (100  Pa.  St.  434)         524 


Pa?e 
Bowie  V.  Ghiselin  (30  Md.  553)    348,  811,  863 
Bowker  v.  Pierce  (1^0  Mass.  262)      710,  1172 
V.  Smith  (48  N.  II.  Ill)  287 

Bowles  V.  Rouse  (8  111.  409)  440 

V.  Winchester  (13  Bush,  1)  1217 

Bowlin  V.  Pearson  (4  Baxt.  341)  237 

Bowiini,^  r.  Bowling  (8  Ala.  538)  473,  475 

V.  Cobb  (6  B.  Mon.  356)  1191 

V.  Estep  (56  Md.  564)  1201 

Bowman's  Appeal  (34  Pa.  St.  19)  941 

Appeal  (62  Pa.  St.  166)  566 

Bowman  v.  Bailev  (20  S.  C.  550)  236 

r.  Long  (23  Ga.  242)  952 

V.  Woods  (1  Green,  Iowa,  441)  480 

V.  Wootton  ^8  B.  Mon.  67)  544 

Bovce  V.  Citv  of  St.  Louis  (20  Mo.  543)      913 
'  V.  Davis  (13  La.  An.  554)  1122 

r.  Foote  (19  Wis.  199)  825 

V.  Wabash  R.  R.  Co.  (63  Iowa,  70)      629 
Bovd's  Appeal  (38  Pa.  St.  240)  520 

'  Estate  (25  Cal.  511)  1199 

Succession  (12  La.  An.  611)  580,  674 

Bovd,  In  re  (4  Redf.  154)  1142 

'  V.  Blankman  (29  Cal.  19)  1090 

v.  Bovd  (66  Pa.  St.  283)  43 

V.  Bovd  (1  Watts,  305)  558 

V.  Buckle  (10  Sim.  595)  996 

V.  Carlton  (69  Me.  200)  261 

V.  Cook  (3  Leigh,  32)  89 

V.  Ebv  (3  Wat'ts,  66)  32,  -39 

V.  Harrison  (36  Ala.  533)  243 

V.  Hawkins  (2  Dev.  Eq.  195)  702 

v.  Hawkins  (2  Dev.  Kq.  329)  1160 

v.  Hunter  (44  Ala.  705)  239 

V.  Martin  (9  Heisk.  382)  237 

r   Oglesby  (23  Grat.  674)  684 

V.  Sloan  (2  Bailev,  31 1)  389,  745 

V.  White  (.32  Ga."  530)  1239 

Bovden  v.  Ward  (38  Vt   628)  164 

Boyer  v.  Bover  (21  111.  App.  534)  168, 170, 189 
V.  Frick  (4  Watts  &  S.  357)  82 

Bovers  v.  Newbanks  (2  Ind.  388)  258 

Boyett  V.  Kerr  (7  Ala.  9)  12-30 

Bovkin  V.  Bovkin  (21  S.  C.  513)  966,  985 

Bovlan  V.  Meeker  (28  N.  J.  L.  274)      37,  49'^ 
BoVle  V.  Parker  (3  Md.  Ch.  42)  96,  875 

Bovles  v.  Latham  (61  Iowa,  174)  229 

Bovlston  V  Carver  (4  Mass.  595)        595,  648 
BoVnton  r.  Brastow  (53  Me.  362)    1084,  1086 
r.  Nelson  (46  Ala.  501)  342 

V.  Peterborough  R.  R.  (4  Cush.  467)  408, 
636,  1142 
Bovse  V.  Rossborough  (6  H.  L.  Cas.  2)        44, 

45,  46,  48 

Brace  r.  Black  (17  No.  E.  R.  66)  34 

Brackenridge  v.  Holland  (2  Blackf.  377)   3.57 

Brackett  v.'Goddard  (54  Me.  -309)  597 

V.  Griswold  (103  N.  Y.  425)  625.  626 

V.  Hoitt  (20  N.  H.  257)  385 

i;.  Tillotson  (4  N.  H.  208)  761,1151 

V.  Waite  (4  Vt.  .389)  609 

Bradburv  v.  Reed  (23  Tex.  268)  1059 

Bradford  v.  Boudinot  (3  Wash.  122)         1149 

V.  Bradford  (66  Ala.  252)  263 

V.  Bradford  (19  Oh.  St.  546)  960 

i:  Cook  (4  La.  An.  229)  1060 

V.  Felder  (2  McC.  C.  168)  432 

V.  Forbes  (9  Allen,  365)  1105 

V.  Havnes  (20  Me.  105)  964 

V.  McConihav  (15  W.  Va.  732)  1053,  1054 

V.  Monks  (132  Mass.  405)  718 


TABLE   OF   CASES. 


xli 


Bradfurd    Academy  v.   Grover  (55   Vt. 

4G-2)  ](><18 

BraJtoids  V.  Kents  (43  Pa.  St.  474)  •20lt 

Bradluirst  v.  Brailliuist  (1  I'ai.  ;i-Jl)  'J4'.l 

Brailisli  V.  McCli;llaii  (100  I'a.  iSt.  OUT)  00 

BraUlee  v.  Aiulvews  (Vi7  Mass.  50)     871,  OOli 

bi-adlov's  Estate  (9  Pliila.  327)  1182 

Estate  (11  Phila.  87)  705,  1147 

Bradlev  v.  Andress  (27  Ala.  500)  480 

V.  Bradlev  (3  Kedf.  51 2)  534,  5:58 

V.  Bri-ham  (144  Mass.  181)  280 

V.  Coiuiuoii wealth  (31  Pa.  tit.  522)      417, 

546,  552 

V.  Deroche  (7  S.  W.  R.  770)  204 

V.  Hunt  (5  GilUV- J.  54)  118 

V.  Kees  (113  111.  327)  802 

V.  Saddler  (54  Ga.(iSl)  008 

V.  Vail  (48  Conn.  375)  812 

Bradlv  v.  Westeott  (13  Ves.  445)  720 

Bradner  v.  Faulkner  (12  N.  Y.  472)  1005 

Bradshaw  v.  Simpson  (6  Ired.  Eii.  243)     387, 

003 
Bradstreet  v.  Kinsella  (76  Mo.  63)  404 

Bradwin  v.  Harpur  (Amb.  374)  803 

Bradv  v.  Cubit  (1  Douc:].  31)  100 

V.  McBride  (33  N.J .  Eq .  49.5)  38 

Bragden  v.  Brown  (2  Add.  441)  40 

Bragg  V.  Beers  (71  Ala.  151)  1022 

Braham  v.  Burchell  (3  Add.  243)  501 

Braidsher  v.  Cannady  (70  N.  C.  445)  1217 
Brainard  v.  Colehester  (31  Conn.  407)  231 
Braiuerd  i'.  Cowdrev  ( 16  Conn.  1)     893,  907, 

1100 

Bralev  v.  Simonds  (61  N.  H.  360)  1050 

Braman's  Ajipeal  (BiJ  Pa.  St.  78)  705 

Bramblet  v.  Webb  (11  Sm.  &  M   438)        8"  2 

Bramhall  v.  Ferns  (14  N.  Y.  41)  95.i 

Branch  Bank  v.  Donelson  (12  Ala.  741)      845 

V.  Hawkins  (12  Ala.  755)  846 

r.  Wade  (13  Ala.  427)  380 

Brandon  v.  Allison  (66  N.  C.  5-32)  1003 

V.  Hoggatt  (32  Miss.  335)        1137,  1148, 

1140,  1207 

V.  Judah  (7  Ind.  545)  077 

V.  Mason  (1  Lea,  015)  4  34 

V.  Phelps  (77  N.  C.  44)  1271 

V.  Robinson  (18  Ves.  429)  956 

Branger  r.  Lucy  (82  111.  91)  1272 

Branham  v.  Commonwealth  (7  J.  J.  Marsh. 

190)  1144 

Brannon  v.  Oliver  (2  Stew.  47)  702 

Bransbv  v.  Grantham  (Plowd.  52."i)  S86 

V.  Haines  (1  Cas.  Temp.  Lee,  120)        26 
Branson  lu  Yancv  (1  Dev.  Eq.  77)  258 

Brant's  Will  (40'Mo.  266)  272.987,  1094,1103 
Brant  i\  Virginia  Coal  Co.  (93  U.  S.  320)  729 
V.  Willson  (8  Cow.  ,56)  87,  07 

Branton  v.  Branton  (23  Ark.  569)  110,  357 
Brasbridge  v.  Woodroffe  (2  Ark.  69)  8  '5 

Brasfield  v.  French  (59  Miss.  632)  282,  689 
Brashear  v.  Williams  (10  Ala.  630)  443 

Brasher  u.  Marsh  (15  Oh.  St.  103)  881 

Bratney  v.  Curry  (33  Ind.  399)  177 

Brattle  v.  Converse  (1  Root,  174)  394 

V.  Giistin  (1  Root,  425)  394 

Brattleboro  v  Mead  (43  Vt.  5.56)  915 

Brattle   Square,   &c.  v.  Grant  (3   Gray, 

143)  917.  920,  9.50 

Brawner  v.  Sterdevant  (9  G.n.  69)       620,  624 

Braxton  v.  Freeman  (6  Rich.  L.  35)  267 

V.  State  (25  Ind.  82)  558,  559 


Pnge 

Braxton  r.  Wood  (4  Grat.  25)  7i)0 

Brav  )'.  Dudgeon  (0  Muuf.  132)  517 

'v.  Lamb  (2  Dev.  Eq.  372)  1098 

i:  McCUnv  (.55  Mo.  128)  337 

V.  Neill  (21  N.J.  Eq.  343)         272,  1035, 

1030,  1048 

Bravfield  v.  Brayfield  (3  H.  &  J.  208)        489 

Brav  lev  v.  Ross"  (33  Iowa,  505)  796 

Brazeale  v.  Brazeale  (9  Ala.  491)       077, 1220 

Brazer  v.  Dean  (15  Ma.ss.  183)  186 

Brazier  v.  Clark  (5  Pick.  90)  558,  7:i8 

Biearlcy  v.  Brearlev  (0  N.  J.  Eq.  21)  720 

Breathitt  v.  Whittakcr  (8  B.  ^lon.  530)    57,  .58 

Bredow  v.  Mut.  Sav.  lust.  (28  Mo.  181)      231 

Brec  r.  Bree  (51  111.  307)  1036 

Breed  r.  Pratt  (18  Pick.  115)  49 

Breidiam  v.  Storv  (30  Cal.  179)  1038 

Brennan's  Appeal  (05  Pa.  St.  16)  1164 

Estate  (65  Cal.  517)  S05 

Brennan  v.  Harris  (20  Ala.  185)  396 

Brenner  v.  Gauch  (85  111.  308)  175 

Brent  V.  Bank  of  Washington  (10  Pet. 

596)  772 

V.  Clevinger  (78  Va.  12)  1138 

V.  Washington  (18  Grat.  526)  905 

Bresee  v.  Stiles  (22  Wis.  120)  205,  1230 

Brett  V.  Cumberland  (3  Bulst.  163)  504 

Brcttun  v.  Fox  ( 100  Mass,  234)  200,  212 

Brewer  v.  Blougher  (14  Pet.  178)  156 

V.  Browne  (68  Ala.  210)  290 

V.  Connell  (11  Humph.  500)  248 

V.  Vanarsdale  (0  Dana,  204)  11.^2 

Brewster,  Matter  of  (5  Dem.  2-39)  532 

V.  Brewster  (8  Mass.  131)  768,  1153 

V.  Gillison  (10  Rid).  Eq.  435)  12.0 

V.  Hill  (1  N.  H.  350)  593 

V.  McCall  (15  Conn.  274)  886,  944 

V.  Shelton  (24  Conn.  140)  1200 

Brick's  Estate  (15  Abb.  Pr.  12)  331,  404 

Brick  V.  Brick  (43  N.  J.  Eq.  107)  49 

V.  Brick  (GO  N.  Y.  144)  46 

Bricker  v.  Lightner  (40  Pa.  St.  199)  42 

Bridge  r.  Swavne  (3  Redf.  487)  1036 

Bridgers  v.  HLitcliiiis  (11  Ired.  08)  1218 

Bridges  r.  Pleasants  (4  Ired.  Eq.  20)  924 

V.  Wilkins  (3  Jones  E(\.  342)  607 

Bridgewater  r.  Brookfield  (3  Cow.  299)    1055 

-  •■  "  ■   " ■■  —''  610 

641 
899 
49 
181 
404 
1198 


Bridgford  t'.  Riddeli  (55  111.  201) 

Bridgman  v.  Bridgman  (138  Mass.  58) 

Bridgnorth  v.  Collins  (15  Sim.  5-38) 

Bridwell  v.  Swank  (84  Mo.  455) 

Brien,  Ex  parte  (2  Tenn.  Ch.  33) 

Briers  v.  Goddard  (Hob.  250) 

Brigel  V.  Starbuck  (34  Oh.  St.  280) 

Briugs  V.  Barker  (145  Mass.  287)     1192,  1200 

^v.  Briggs  (69  Iowa,  017)  890 

V.  Greene  (10  R.  I.  495)  156 

r.  Hartley  (14  Jur.  083)  927 

V.  Smith  "(83  N.C.  .300)  1270 

V.  Starke  (2  Mills  Const.  R.  Ill)  736 

J).  Titus  (13  R.I.  136)  276,277 

Brigham  v.  Elwell  (145  Mass.  520)  1143 

'  r.  Shattuck  (10  Pick.  306)  951 

Bright  r.  White  (8  Mo.  421)  494 

Brightman  v.  Keighlev(Cro.  Eliz.  43)        505 

Brimmer  v.  Sohier  (1  Cush.  118)         872,  886 

Brinckerhoff  v.  Lawrence  (2  Sand.  Ch.  400)  124 

Brinckerhoof  ?•.  Remsen  (8  Pai.  488)  69 

Brine  i-.  Insurance  Co.  (106  U.  S.  627)        379 

Brinker  v.  Brinker  (7  Pa.  St.  53)        340,  341 

Brinkman's  Succession  (5  La.  An.  27)        517 


xliv 


TABLE   OF   CASES. 


Pape 
Briiikman  ?•.  Rueg^fjesick  (71  Mo  ilZ)  4-i 

Briiiley  r.  Gron  (50  Conn.  CU)  1004 

Bnnson,  In  re  (7;i  N.  C.  278)  320,  577 

Brinton's  Estate  (la  I'liila.  2-34)  34 

Briscoe  r.  Tarkington  (5  La.  An.  G92)        52.5 
V.  Witkliffe  (fi  Dana,  157)  514 

Bristcd  V.  Week.s  (5  Kedf.  52'J)  4'J 

Bristol  V.  Bristol  (53  Conn.  242)  024,  925 

Bristol    Sav.   Bank    v.  Woodward   (137 

Mass.  412)  859 

Bristor  v.  Bristor  (93  Ind.  281)  012 

Britain  v.  Kinnaird  (1  B.  &  B.  432)  457 

Briitin  v.  Phillips  (1  Dem.  57)  323,  345 

Britton  V.  Miller  (63  N.  C.  208)  896 

r.  TiKirntun  (112  U.  S.  526)  937 

Broach  v.  Sing  (57  Miss.  115)  81,  489 

V.  \Valke;-(2Ga.  428)  588 

Broadaway's  Succession  (3  F.a.  An.  591)  1153 

Broadwater  v.  Richards  (4  Mont.  80)        1050 

Broadway  r.  Adams  (133  Mass.  170)  956 

Brock  u.  "Frank  (51  Ala.  85)  493 

V.  Philips  (2  Wash.  68)  1077 

V.  Slaten  (82  III.  282)  825 

Brockenborough  v.  MeUtbn  (55  Tex.  493)  1081 

Brockenbrough  v.  Tnrner  (78  Va.  438)        093 

Brockley's  Appeal  (4  Atl.  210)  729,  948 

Broderick's  Will  (21  Wall.  503)  497 

Bioderick  v.  Smith  (3  Lans.  26)  842 

Brodess  v.  Thompson  (2  H.  &  G.  120)        324 

Brodie  v.  Brickley  (2  Rawle,  431)       361,  369 

Brodnax  v.  Brown  (Dudley,  Ga.  202)  423 

Broe  V.  Boyle  (108  Pa.  St^  76)    409,  501,  502 

Brokaw  v  Hudson  (27  N.  J.  Eq.  i:J5)         900 

V.  McDougall  (20  Fla.  212)    195,  200,  212 

Bromley  v.  Miller  (2  Th.  &  C.  575)  494 

Bronaiigh  v.  Pronaugh  (7J.  J.  Marsh.  621)  501 

Bronsdon  «.  Winter  (1  Anib.  57)  905 

Bronsnn  v.  Burnett  (1  Chand.  130)  3;!2 

Brook  V.  Brook  (3  Sm.  &  G.  481)  224 

V.  Chappell  ,34  Wis.  405)      339,  351,  815 

v.  Turner  (1  Mod.  211)  20 

V.  Turner  (2  Mod.  170)  20 

Brookbank  v.  Kennard  (41  Ind.  339  610 

Brooke  v.  Craxton  (2  Grat.  500)  881 

V.  Lewis  (Madd.  &  G.  358)  994 

V.  Townshend  (7  Gill,  10)  .32,  39 

Brooking  r.  Farmers'  Bank  (83  Ky.  431)  1155 

V.  Jennings  (1  Mod.  174)        "  404 

Brooks's  Folate  (54  Cal.  471)  42,  47 

Brooks  V.  Barrett  (7  Pick.  94)  39 

V.  Bicknell  (3  McLean.  250)  634,  635 

V.  Brooks  (12  S.  C.  422)     119,  999,  1000, 

1001,  1138 

V.  Duckworth  (59  Mo.  48)  334 

r.  Kskins  (24  Mo.  App.  296)      1097,  1100 

V.  Fyerett  (13  Allen,  457)  232 

V.  Hyde  (37  Cal.  366)  200 

V.  Jackson  (145  Mass.  307)        1143,  1163 

V.  Lynde  (7  Allen,  64)  994 

V.  Mastin  (69  Mo.  58)  1183 

V.  Oliyer  (1  Amb.  406)  798 

V.  Rayner  (127  Mass.  268)  1267 

V.  Whitmore  (139  Mass.  356)  549 

r.  AVhitmore  (142  Mass.  399)  548 

Brophv's  Estate  (12  Phila.  18)  576 

Brothers  v.  McCur.iy  (.36  Pa.  St.  407)         955 

Brotherton  v.  Hellier  (2  Cas.  Temp.  Lee, 

131)  404 

Brotzman's  Appeal  (119  Pa.  St.  645)  345 

Broughton  v.  Bradley  (34  Ala.  694)    358,  571, 

673 


Page 

Browder  v.  Faulkner  (82  Ala.  257)  331 

Browcr  r.  Hunt  (1«  Oli   St.  311)  154 

Brown's  Ajjpeal  (1  Dall.  311)  737 

Appeal  (12  Pa.  St.  333)  356 

Aiipeal  (08  Pa.  St.  53)  1062 

Appeal  (84  Pa.  St.  457)  346 

Appeal  (89  Pa.  St.  139)  284 

Estate  (93  N.  Y.  295)  883 

F:state  (8  Phila.  197)  705,1186 

Estate  (11  Phila.  127)  529 

Petition  (14  R.  I.  371)  1005 

Will  (1  B.  Mon.  56)  93 

Brown.  Fx  jiarte  (2  Bradf  22)    393,  542,  545 

V.  Anderson  (13  Ga.  171)    472,  473,  1196 

V.  Anderson  (13  Mass.  201)  846 

V.  Armistead  (6  Rand.  594)  724 

V.  Beaver  (3  Jones,  516)  79 

V   Bell  (58  IMich.  58)  1230 

V.  Benight  (3  Blackf.  39)  416,  419 

V.  Bokee  (53  Md.  155)  640,  042 

V.  Bronson  (35  Mich.  415)  245 

r.  Brown  (41  Ala.  215)  1047 

V.  Brown  (1  Barb.  Ch.  189)  363,  375 

V.  Brown  (6  Bush,  648)  904 

V.  Brown  (18  Conn.  410)  116,  119 

V.  IJrown  (8  El.  &  Bl.  875)  96,  98,  483 

V.  Brown  (137  Mass.  539)  972 

V.  Brown  (35  Minn.  191)  370 

V.  Brown  (33  Miss.  39)  182 

V.  Brown  (68  Mo.  388)  202 

f.  Brown  (2  Murphy,  350)  81 

V.  Brown  (8  N.  H.  93)  1244 

r.  Brown  (43  N.  H.  17)  892 

I-  Brown  (44  N.  H.  281)  941 

V.  Brown  (48  N.  H.  90)  8C2 

V.  Brown  (79  Va.  048)  985 

r.  Brightman  (11  Allen,  226)  630 

V.  Burke  (22  Ga.  574)  1218 

V.  Carroll  (-36  Ga.  508)  81 

V.  Clark  (44  Mich.  309)  27 S 

V.  Clark  (77  N.  Y.  369)     71,  86,  108,  475 

V.  Cretchell  (110  Ind.  31)  1239 

V.  Durbin  (5  J.  J.  Marsh.  170)     414,  421 

V.  Dye  (2  Root,  280)  157 

V.  Eaton  (91  N.  C.  20)  78 

f.  Fggleston  (53  Conn.  110)  758,  1150 

f.  Elton  (3  P.  Wnis.  202)  1014 

V.  Evans  (15  Kan.  88)  1057,  1074 

V.  Finlev  (18  Mo.  375)  632 

V.  F'orsche  (43  Mich.  492)  1242 

V.  Gaslight  Co.  (58  Cal.  426)  358 

V.  Gibson  {IN.  ik  McC.  326)  326,  499 

V.  Grimes  (60  Ala.  047)  1097 

V.  Hanauer  (37  Ark.  155)  1028 

V.  Harris  (9  Baxt.  380)  489 

t;.  Hinman  (Bravi.  20)  1199 

V.  Hodgdon  (31  Me.  65)        165,  169,  170, 

186,  270 

V.  James  (3  Strob.  Fq.  24)  ll(i8 

v.  Johns  (02  Md.  333)  350 

V.  .Toiner  (3  S.  E.  R.  157)  177 

V.  Joiner  (5.  S.  E.  R.  497)  177 

t".  Keller  (32  111.  151)  200 

V.  Kelsev  (2  Cush.  243)  923 

V.  King'(2  Ind.  520)  565 

V.  Knapp  (79  N.  Y.  136)    366,  1007,1009, 

1099,  1100 

V.  Lambert  (33  Grat.  250)  1002 

V.  Leavitt  (20  N.  H.  493)       421,  422,  423 

V.  Lewis  (9  R.  I.  497)  385,  643 

V.  McAllister  (34  Ind.  375)  70 


TABLE   OF   CASES. 


xlv 


Drown  V.  Merchants'  Bank  (79  N.  C.  244)  859 

r.  Noble  (4-2  Oil.  St.  Wo)  741 

V.  Parrv  (2  Uick.  (;8."i)  2(i() 

f.  lYMukM-irast  (7  Allen,  427)  580,  fi77,  7-02 

V.  Porter  (7  Humph.  •J7:!)  841,  84;5 

V.  Public  Adm'r(2  Brudf.lOS)  777 

V.  Hedwyne  (16  Ga.  (!7)  1002 

V.  Uiciiards  (17  N.  J.  Eq.  32)  2:i0 

V.  Kitrsin  (94  111.  5110)  30,  39 

V.  Kobert.s  (21  La.  An.  508)  10-33 

V.  livdcr  (42  N.  .1.  Kq.  -i.ili)         401,  1203 

V.  Selwin  (Cas.  Temp.  Talb.  240)         652 

V.  Slater  (16  Conn.  192)  8.")6 

V.  Starke  (3  I);n;a,  316)  2.-j0 

V.  Stewart  (4  Md.  Cli.  308)  533,  534 

V.  Strickland  (2S  Ga.  38?)  505,  576 

V.  Strickland  (32  Me.  174)  622 

V.  Sullivan  (22  lud.  35!))      414.  417,  418 

V.  Sumner  (31  Vt.  671)  816,  856 

V.  Taylor  (62  Ind.  295)  121'; 

V.  Temperlev  (3  Hu<s.  Ch.  263)  1009 

V.  Thorndike  (15  Tick.  388)  8.)3 

V.  Torrev  (24  IJarb.  583)  37 

V.  Tutweiler  (61  Ala.  372)  676 

V.  Van  Duzee  (44  Vt.  52!))  1066 

V.  Ventriss  (24  La.  An.  187)  576 

V.  Vinvard  (Bailev  Eq.  460)  1149 

V.  Wafter  (58  Ala."  310)  422,  425 

V.  Ward  (53  Md.  376)  34 

V.  Weatherby  (71  Mo.  152)  559 

V.  Wheeler  (18  Conn.  199)  675 

V.  Whitmore  (71  ISIe.  65)  631,  794 

V.  Williams  (31  Me.  403)  244 

V.  Williams  (5  H.  L  309)  896 

1-.  Williamson  (36  Pa.  St.  333^  918 

V.  Wood  (Alevn.  30)  574 

V.  Wood  (17  Mass.  68)  502 

V.  Woody  (22  Mo.  App.  253)  1057 

Browne  v.  MbDonald  (129  Mass.  66)  688 

V.  Molliston  (3  Whart.  129)  43 

«.  Preston  (.38  Md.  373)  811 

V.  Rogers  (1  Houst.  458)  766 

Browiiell  v.  Curtis  (10  Pai.  210)  631 

Rrownfield  v.  Wilson  (78  111.  467)  873 

Browning,  Goods  of  (2  Sw.  &  Tr.  G34)       519 

«.  Harris  (99  III.  4.56)  207 

V.  Headley  (2  Rob.,  Va.  340)        640,  642 

V.  Heane  (2  Phill.  69)  518 

V.  Watkins  (10  Sm.  &  M.  482)  4-32 

Brownlee  v.  Lockwood  (20  N.  .T.  Eq.  239)    363 

Brownson  v.  Gifford  (8  How.  Pr.  389)         960 

V.  Lawrence  (L.  R.  (i  Eq.  1)  1111 

Brubaker's  Appeal  (98  Pa.  St.  21)  532 

Bruce  r.  Griscom  (9  Hun,  28  »)  1219 

V.  Slemp  (82  Va.  352)       1218,  1222,  1223 

Bramfield  v.  Drook  (101  Ind.  190)  718 

Hrummagim  v.  Ambrose  (48  Cal.  366)      1064 

Bruscup'v.  Taylor  (26  Md.  410)  1203 

Brush  V.  Button  (36  Conn.  2J2)  1122 

V.  Wear  (15  Pet.  93)  1077 

V.  Wilkins  (4  .John.  Ch.  506)        105,  106 

V.  Young  (28  N.  J.  L.  237)  1175 

Bryan's  Estate  (4  Phila.  228)  776 

Bryan  v.  Bacheller  (6  R.  I.  543)  227 

'  V.  Bauder  (23  Kan.  95)      329,  1037,  1089 

V.  Hicksou  (40  Ga.  405)  356 

V.  Mc<iee  (2  Wa<h.  C.  C.  3.37)  371,  374.  649 

V.  Mulligan  (2  Hill  Ch.  361)  697 

V.  Mundy  (14  Mo.  458)  775,  776,  826 

V.  Rooks"  (25  Ga.  622)  642 

V.  Thompson  (7  J.  J.  Marsh.  586)        733 


Pa?e 

Brvan  i)  Walton  (14  Ga.  185)  568 

■  V.  Weems  (25  Ala.  195)  11.56 

Bryant  v.  Allen  (6  N.  II.  116)  326,  ll;/3 

V.  Helton  ((i6  (ia.  477)  421,  425 

V.  Horn  (42  xVla.  4(52)  331 

V.  Livennore  (20  Minn.  313)  1267 

V.  McCuiie  (49  Mo.  540)         171,  229,  231 

Brvar's  Appeal  (HI  Pa.  St.  81)        24U,  1074 

HrVcc,  Goods  of  (2  Curt.  325)  6  ! 

BrVson  v.  Nickols  (2  Hill  Cn.  113)  1146 

Buchan  r.  Uintoul  (10  Hun,  183  ;  S.  C.  70 

N.Y.I)  1181 

V.  Sumner  (2  Barb.  Ch.  165)  234.  289,  290 

Buchanan's  Ai)peal  (72  Pa.  St.  448)  KC-'S 

Buchanan  c.  Llovd  (64  Md.  306)  972 

V.  Matlock  (8  Humph.  390)  470 

V.  Tiiomason  (70  Ala.  4oi)  1128 

V.  Wagnon  (62  I'ex.  375)  8il 

Buchanon  v.  Buchanon  (99  N.  C.  308)        91-) 

Bucher  V.  Biicher  (86  III.  377)  11 12 

Buck  V.  Paine  (75  Me.  582)  951 

Buckingham  v.  Ludlum  (37  N.  J.  Eq.  137)  287 

V.  Wesson  (54  Miss.  526)  723,  1U84 

Buckley  v.  Barber  (6  Exch.  164)  427 

r.  Buckley  (U  Barb.  43)  2;i0 

V.  Gerard" (123  Mass.  8)  110 

Bucklin  V.  Chapin  (1  Lan^.  443)  767 

Buckminster  r.  Ingham  (Bravt.  116)  421 

Bucknam  v.  Phelps  (6  Mass.  448)  193 

Buckner  v.  Wood  (45  Miss.  57)  1046 

Buck  worth  v.  Thirkell  (3  Bos.  &   Pul. 

6.52)  232 

Budd  )•.  Brooke  (3  Gill,  198)  494 

V.  Garrison  (45  Md.  418)  10O9 

V.  Hiler  (27  N.  J.  L.  43)  230,  599 

r.  Williams  (26  Me.  265)  1097 

Buddecke  v.  Bnddeckc  (31  La.  An.  572)     346 

Buehler  v.  Bullington  (43  Pa.  St.  278)         568, 

1096 

Buell  V.  Dickey  (9  Neb.  285)  435 

r.uffaloe  v.  Baugh  (12  Ired.  201)  991 

Bufford  V.  Johnson  (34  N.  H   489)  857 

Buffum  V.  Sparhawk  (20  N.  H.  81)  165,  1200 

Buford  V.  McKee  (3  B.  Mon.  224)    1022,  1040 

Bug-bee  v.  Sargent  (23  Me.  269)  1097 

V.  Surrogate  (2  Cow.  471)  439 

Buie  V.  Pollock  (55  Miss.  309)  1123 

Bulfinch  V.  Benner  (64  Me.  404)  8-58 

Bull  V.  Bull  (8  Conn.  47)  923,  924 

c.  Harris  (31111.  487)  863 

Bullard  v.  Benson  (1  Dem.  486)  1007 

V.  Benson  (31  Hun,  104)  273 

r.  Briggs  (7  Pick.  533)  242 

Bullion  V.  Campbell  (27  Tex.  653)  804 

Bullock's  Estate  (17  Pac.  R.  540)  1123 

Bullock  r.  Bullock  (2  Dey.  Eq.  307)  902 

V.  Rogers  (16  Vt.  294)  38.5,  650 

Bundv  V.  McKnight  (48  Ind.  ,502)  31,  43 

Bunn"v.  Mavkham  (7  Taunt.  224)        121,  125 

Bunnel  r.  Witherow  (29  Ind.  123)  608 

Bunnell  v.  Post  (25  Minn.  376)  1156 

l^iiiitiu  V.  Johnson  (28  La.  An.  796)  70 

l?untyn  v.  Holmes  (9  Lea,  319)  1045 

Burbank's  Will  (69  Iowa,  378)  948 

Biubaiik  V.  Payne  (17  La.  An.  15)      360,  693 

V.  Whitney  (24  Pick.  146)  912 

Burch  r.  Atchfson  (82  Kv.  585)  199 

f.  Burch(19  Ga.  174)  513.742 

Burckhartt  r.  Helfrich  (77  Mo.  .381)  781.  1243 

Burdett  r.  Silsbee  (15  Tex.  604)  1080 

V.  Wrighte  (2  B.  &  Al.  710)  910 


xlvi 


TABLE   OF    CASES. 


Pago 

Biirdyne  v.  Mackev  (7  Mo.  374)  367,  622 

Hurfoot  V.  Burt(Hit-(2  Leigh,  ll'J)  94!) 

Burford  r.  Steele  (80  Ala.  147)  847 

Burnu  V.  Bi-iittuu  (2  Ihiie,  '376)  787 

\\  Hamilton  (72  (ia.  568)         80,  483,  484 

Burger  v.  Hill  (1  Bradt.  ;j(iO)  46!),  484 

Burgess  v.  Burgess  (109  I'a.  St.  312)  58 

V.   VVIieate  (I  Wm.  Bl.  123;  S.  C  1 

Eden,  177)  304 

Bnrgie  v.  Sparks  (11  Lea,  84)  826 

Burgovne  v.  Showier  (1  Kob.  5)  !)4 

Biirgwin  v.  Hostler  (1  Tavl.  75)  287 

Burk  V.  Baxter  (3  Mo.  207)  602 

V.  Gleason  (46  Pa.  St.  297)  190 

V.  Jones  (13  Ala.  167)  8.J2 

Burke  v.  Burke  (34  Mich.  451)  145 

V.  Coll>ert  (114  Mass.  160)  28 

V.  Coolidge  (35  Ark.  180}  1151,  1186 

V    .Volan  (1  Dem.  43(i)  476 

V.  Terrv  (28  Conn.  414)  795,  1195 

V.  Wilder  (1  McCord  Vh.  551)  898 

Burkhalter  v.  Burkhalter  (88  Ind.  368)       268 

r.  Norton  (3  Ueni.  610)  654 

Burkhead  v.  Colion  (2  Dev.  &  B.  Eq.  77)  992, 

1247 

Bnrkholder's  Appeal  (105  Pa.  St.  31)         610 

Burks  r.  Bennett  (62  Tex.  277)  838 

V.  Oshorn  (9  B.  Mon.  579)  256 

Burleigh  v.  Clough  (.52  N.  H.  267)  949 

f.^Coffin  (22  N.  H.  118)  642 

Burlevson  v.  Whitlev  (97  N.  C.  295)  953 

Burlington  v.  Fosbv"'(6  Vt.  83)  156 

Burneil's  Estate  (13  Phila.  387)  1142 

Burnell  v.  Malonev  (36  Vt.  636)  622 

Barnes  v.  Burton  (1  A.  K.  Marsh.  349)    1125 

Burnet  r.  Burnet  (30  N.  J.  Eq.  595)  944 

Burnett  v.  Meadows  (7  B.  Mou.  277)  443 

i;.  State  (14  Tex.  455)  336 

V.  Strong  (26  Miss.  116)  952 

Burnev,  Ex  parte  (29  Ga.  33)  1168 

Burnham  v.  Aver  (.35  N.  H.  351)  94 

V.  Comfort  (37  Hun,  216)  973,  978 

V.  Conif(n-t  (108  N.  Y.  535)  103,  978 

V.  Lasselle  (35  Tiid.  425)  621 

V.  Porter  (24  N.  H.  570)  2.59 

Burnlev  r.  Duke  (1  Rand.  108)  537,  567 

r.  Duke  (2  Kob.  Va.  102)  568 

Burns's  Estate  (.54  Cal.  223)  1198 

Burns  V.  Burns  (4  Serg.  &  Pt.  295)  89 

V.  Clark  (37  Barb. 496)  951 

V.  Cox  (10  Phila.  8)  1141 

V.  Grand  Pt.  R.  Co.  (15  N.  East.  •230)  629, 

630 
V.  Hamilton  (33  Ala.  210)  1077 

V.  Keas  (20  Iowa,  If!)  1200 

V.  Keas  (21  Iowa,  257)  195,  203 

V.  Van  Loan  (29  La.  An.  560)       4.50,  461 
Burnside's  Succession  (34  La.  An.  728)     400, 

581,  944 

Burnside  v.  Savier  (6  Oreg.  154)  295 

Burr,  Matter  of  »2  Barb.  Ch.  208)  39 

r.  ]McEwen  (l'.aldw.  1.54)  1146 

V.  Sherwood  (3  Bradf.  85)  639,  641 

V.  Smith  (7  Vt.  241)  921,  929 

Burras^e  v.  Britrars  (120  Mass.  103)  140 

Burris  v.  Page  (12  Mo.  358)  232 

Burrouchs  v.  Adams  (78  Ind.  160)  158 

V.  iVIcLain  (37  Iowa,  189)  796,  806 

Burrow  v.  Rac;land  (6  Humph.  481)  497 

Bursen  v.  Goodspeed  (60  111.  277)     214,  102.5, 

1028,  1076 


Pase 

Bushee  v.  Freeborn  (11  R.  L  149)  1004 

Burt  V.  Hurt  (41  N.  Y.  46)  739 

V.  Herron  (66  I'a.  St.  400)  876 

r.  Kaiidlett  (.59  N.  II.  130)  136,  205 

Burtch  )•.  Klliott  (3  Ind.  99)  6.32 

Burton's  Estate  (63  Cal.  36)  216 

Estate  (64  Cal.  428)  210,  346 

Burton  i\  Burton  (4  Harr.  73)  665 

V  Burton  (26  Ho. V.  Pr.  474)  226 
f.  Hintrai^er  (18  Iowa,  348)  5!.5 
v.  Lockirt  (9  Ark.  411)  ]2'-8 
r.  Mill  (78  Va.  468)  210 
V.  Newberv  (L.  R.  1  Ch.  D.  234)  101 
V.  Rutherford  (49  Mo.  255)  fc19 
V.  Scott  (3  Rand.  399)  42 
V.  Spiers  (87  N.  C.  87)                   211,  212 

Burtonshaw  v.  Gilliert  (1  Cowp   49)  89 

Burwell  ;.-.  Cawood  (2  How.  560)  281,  282 

V.  Corbin  (1  liand.  131)  473 

V  Shaw  (2  Bradf.  322)  565 
Buscher  v.  Knapp  (107  lad.  340)    1219,  1220, 

1223 

Bush's  Appeal  (.33  Pa.  St.  85)  817 

Appeal  (102  I'a.  St.  C02)  648 

Bush  ».  Adams  (22  Fla.  177)  712,  805,  841.  861 

r    Bradley  (4  Day,  298)  277 

V.  Bush  (5  Hnust.  245)  236 

V.  Hush  (87  JIo.  480)  4!.'0 

V.  Clark  (127  Mass.  Ill)         187.  290,  293 

V.  Lmdsev  (44  Cal.  121)  343 

Bushee  r.  Sufles  (77  N.  C.  (2)  1247 

Bushnell  v.  Carpenter  (92  N.  Y.  270)  941 

r.  Dennison  (13  Fla.  77)  1239 

Buster  r.  Newkirk  (20  John.  75)  596 

Bute  V.  Kneale  (109  111.  652)  248 

Butler's  Estate  (38  N.  Y.  397)  605 

Butler  IJ.  Ben.'^on  (1  Barb.  526)  472 

V.  Butler  (3  Barb.  Ch.  304)  888 

I'.  Butler  (5  Harr.  178)  484 

v.  Emmett(8  Pai.  12)  1072 

V.  Huestis  (68  111.  594)  900 

V.  Ives  (139  Mass.  202)  609 

r.  Johnson  (41  Hun,  206)  843 

V.  Lawson  (72  Mo.  227)         340,  815,  844 

I'.  Perrott  (1  Dem.  9)  399 

V.  Ralston  (69  Ga.  485)  898 

V.  Rickets  (11  Iowa.  107)  609 

Butnian  v   Porter  (100  Mass.  337)  264 

Butterfield  r.  Haskins  (33  Me.  392)  881 

V.  Stanton  (44  Miss.  15)  611 

Butterlv's  Succession  (10  La.  An   258)     1166 

Button'v.  Am.  Tract  Society  (23  Vt.  33fi)    892 

Ruttrick  v.  King  (7  Met.  20)  392,  1070 

Butts  V.  Genung  (5  Pai.  254)  1266 

r.  Phelps  (79  Mo.  302)  8-30 

V.  Trice  (69  Ga.  74)  265 

Bverly  r.  Donlin  (72  Mo.  270)  5-37,  1132,  1133 

Bvers'r.  Hoppe  (61  Md.  206)  61,  77 

■     V.  McCartney  (62  Iowa,  339)  923 

Bvng  V.  Bvng  (10  H.  L.  Cas.  171)  590 

BVnnm  i;."Bynum  (11  Ired.  L.  632)  57 

BVram  v.  Evram  (27  Vt.  295)  215,  1198 

Bvrd  v.  Governor  (2  Mo.  102)  1152 

*     V.  Wells  (40  Miss.  711)  844,  1144 

Bvrn  V.  Fleminij  (3  Head,  658)  822 

Bvrne  v.  Bvrne  (3  S.  &  R.  54)  975 

"     r.  McDow  (23  Ala.  404)  863 

V.  Stewart  (3  Des.  135)  516 

Byrnes  r.  Dibble  (5  Redf.  383)  519 

"    V.  Stilwell  (103  N.  Y.  4.53)  878,  942 

Byron  v.  Bvron  (Cro.  Eliz.  472)  441 


TABLE   OF   CASES. 


xlvii 


Caballero's  Succession  (25  La.  An.  646)  1125 
Cabaniu'-  v.  Skinker  (56  Mo.  357)  362,  ;JU-'J,  fioO 
Cabells  v.  Purvfar  (27  (irat.  902)  1222 

Caliles  r.  Prescott  (67  Mc.  582)  146,  647 

Caboiiret's  Succossion  (9  l,a.  An.  520)  ll'.H) 
CadL-  r.  Pavis  {'.»>  N.  C.  l;i'J)  1239 

Caclell  V.  I'alniei-  (7  Bli.  202;  1  CI.  &  Fin. 

372)  915 

Cadman  v.  Richards  (13  Neb.  383)  402 

Cadmus  V.  Jackson  (52  Pa.  St.  2J5)  1073 

("adv  V.  Bard  (21  Kan.  667)  369 

( 'aeinan  v.  Van  Ilarke  (33  Kan.  333)     95.  98 

Cai.alan,  In  re  (70  Cal.  604)  1130 

Cai-   Ex  parte  (T.  U.  P.  Cliarlt.  159)         522 

Cain  V.  Chicago  &  li.  L  K.  U.  (54  Iowa. 

255)  217 

V.  Haas  (18  Tex.  616)  523 

V.  Warford  (7  Md.  282)  752 

Cairns  v.  Chaubert  (9  I'ai.  160)  1173 

Calahan's  Estate  (60  Cal.  232)         1192,  1197 

Calanau  v.  McClure  (47  Barb.  206)    805,  806, 

842 

Calder  v.  Pvfer  (2  Cr.  C.  C.  430)        744,  751 

Calderwood  v.  Tevis  (23  Cal.  335)  2U0 

Caldwell  V.  Anderson  (104  Pa.  St.  199)        50 

V.  Caldwell  (7  Bush,  515)  892 

V.  Caldwell  (15  N'o.  E.,  Ohio,  297)       340 

V.  Caldwell  (45  Oh.  St.  512)  1086 

V.  Hardin;.-  (5  Ulatchf.  501)  363 

V.  Hawkins  (73  .Mo.  456)  300 

V.  Kinkead  (1  15.  Mon.  228)  941,  975 

V.  l.ockrid-e  (9  Mo.  362)  333 

I'.  McVicar  (12  Ark.  746)  684 

V.  Renfrew  (33  Vt.  213)  118 

Calhoun's  Estate  (6  Watts,  185)  707,  708 

Succession  (-38  La.  An.  323)  58i) 

Calhoun  v.  Crossirro ve  (33  La.  An .  1001 )     150, 

1216 

V.  Fletcher  (63  Ala.  574)      713,  714,  1142 

V.  Kiiii?  (5  Ala   523)  370,  371 

V.  McLendon  (42  Ga.  405)  182 

Calkins  i\  Johnston  (20  Oli.  St.  539)         1031 

V.  Smith  (41  .Mich.  40.))  720 

Call  V.  Ewinf?  (1  Blackf.  301)  558,  733 

V.  Houdlette  (70  Me.  308)  645.  82.» 

Callaghan  r.  Hall  (1  Serif.  &  U.  241)  1159, 1176 

Callaiian's  Guardian  (tuck.  62)  12-50 

Callahan  v.  Griswold  (9  .Mo.  784)      397,  1033 

Calloway  v.  Gilmer  (36  Ala.  354)  1083 

Calmes  v.  McCracken  (8  S.  C.  87)       211,  238 

Calvert  v.  Holland  (9  B.  Mon.  458)    1137,  1 14;), 

1157 
V.  Marlow  (18  Ala.  67)  286 

V.  Williams  (9  Gill,  172)  1203 

Calvit  V.  Calvit  (32  Miss.  124)  188 

Calyer  v.  Calyer  (4  Redf.  305)  345,  346,  1 142 
Cambridge  v.  Lexinpjton  (1  Pick.  505)  224 
Camden  i\  Plain  (91' Mo.  117)  330,  1059,  1060 
Camden  Co.  v.  Ingham  (40  N.  J.  Eq.  3)     28, 

466,  510 
Camden  Mutual  Association  v.  Jones  (23 

N.  J.  Eq.  171)  264 

Cameron  v.  Cameron  (82  Ala.  392)  436 

V.  Cameron  (15  Wis.  1)  559,  669 

V.  Wurtz  (4  McCord.  278)  777 

Cameto  v.  Dupuv  (47  Cal.  79)  199,  216 

Camp's  .4ppeal  (-36  Cmin.  88)  124 

Estate  (74  Mo.  192)  1138 

Estate  (6  Mo.  App.  563)  1138 

Camp  I'.  Camp  (18  Hun,  217)  1215 

V.  Crocker  (54  Conn.  21)  921 


Camp  V.  Grant  (21  Conn.  41) 

V.  Shcrlcy  (9  Lea,  2.55) 


Page 
287,  865 

, , 1045 

Canq)au's  AiJpcal  (48  .Mich.  236)  120J 

Campau  r.  Canq)au  (25  .Mich.  127)  712,  714 

V.  Gillett  (1  Mich.  416)  1050 

Campl)cll,  Appellant  (2  Dougl.  141)  230 

Estate  of  (Tuck.  24o)  lOdl 

Goods  of  (2  Hagg.  555)  406 

In  re  (12  Wis.  .369)  1120 

I'.  Baldwin  (6  Blackf.  364)  643 

V.  Beaumont  (91  N.  V.  464)  999 

V.  Browdcr  (7  Lea,  240)  24 

r.  Brown  (6  How.  Aliss.  230)  1080 

r.  Hrown  (64  Iowa,  425)  367 

V.  Campbell  (30  N.  J.  Eq.  315)  234 

r.  Johnson  (41  Oh.  St.  588)  053,  6-54 

V.  Johnston  (1  Sandf.  Cb.  148)  636 

V.  Knights  (26  Me.  224)  1046 

V.  Logan  (2  Bradf.  90)  71,  4!)8 

r.  McDonald  (11  Watts,  179)  953 

V.  Mesier  (4  John.  Ch.  334)  675 

V.  Miller  (-38  Ga.  304)  699 

V.  Moore  (15  III.  App.  129)  258 

V.  Murphv  (2  Jones  Eq.  357)  260,  274 

V.  Owens'(32  La.  An.  265)  1048 

V.  Purdv  (5  Redf.  434)  761 

V.  Rawdon  (18  N.  Y.  412)  872 

V.  Renwick  (2  Bradf.  80)  1033 

V.  Sheldon  (13  Pick.  8)  363,  492 

V.  Thatcber  (54  Barb.  382)  332 

V.  Tousev  (7  Cow.  64)    363,  374,  415,  422, 

649 

V.  Wallace  (10  Grav,  162)  492 

V.  Winston  (2  Hen"  &  M.  10)  1127 

V.  Young  (3  How.  Miss.  301)  8o8 

Camptield  v.  Ely  (13  N.  J.  L.  1.50)  700,  765 

Canada's  .■\ppeal  (47  Conn.  450)  70 

Candler  r.  Candler  (2  Dem.  124)  949 

V.  Dinkle  (4  Watis,  143)  942 

Candor's  Appeal  (5  W.  lS:  S.  513)  825 

Cantield  v.  Bentlev  (12  Atl.  6-55)  834 

V.  Bostwick  (21  Conn.  550)  889,  946, 1150, 

1187 

V.  Canfield  (4  Dem.  Ill)  86,95 

Cannon  r.  Apperson  (14  Lea,  553)  269,  705. 

951,  953,  1008,  1103,  1138,  1139,  1151 

r.  Bonner  (38  Tex.  487)  215 

r.  Crook  (32  Md.  482)  680 

f.  Jenkins  (1  Dev.  Eq.  422)  696 

V.  rimer  (Bai.  Eq.  204)  990 

r.  Windsor  (1  Houst.  143)  463,  823 

Canole  c.  Hurt  (78  Mo.  649)  197 

Canterburv  r.  Tappen  (8  B.  &  C.  151)      1212 

Cantine  ('."Phillips  (5  Harr.  428)  823 

Cantrell  r.  Conner  (51  How.  Pr.  45)  181 

Cantrill  r.  Risk  (7  Bush,  158)  247 

Capen  r.  Skinner  (139  Mass.  190)  1200 

Capper  v.  Siblev  (65  Iowa,  754)  342 

Caraway  v.  Smith  (28  Ga.  541)  81 

(Jard  r.  Grinman  (.5  Conn.  164)  93 

Care  v.  Keller  (77  Pa.  St.  487)  274 

Carey's  Estate  (49  Vt.  236)  104 

CareV  v.  Dennis  (13  Md.  1)  1036 

V.  Goodim^e  (3  Bro.  C  C.  97)  652 

r.  Gnillow  (105  INIass.  18)  422,  424 

Carhart  iv  Vann  (40  Ga.  389 1  1072 

Carl's  Appeal  (106  Pa.  St.  635)  87,  911 

Carl  r.  Poelman  (12  La.  An.  344  429 

Carlisle  r.  Burlev  (3  Me.  2.50)  643,  674 

r.  Mulhern  (19  Mo,  5(i)  289 

Carlton  r.  Bvers  (70  X.  C.  091)  1040 


xlviii 


TABLE   OF   CASES. 


Paj;e 

Cailton  r.  Carlton  (40  N.  II.  14)  72 

V.  Uavaiit  (u8  Ga.  451)  107;j 

Carlvie  v.  Camion  (3  Hawie,  489)  1102 

Caiivsle  v.  Cailv.sli;  (10  Md.  440)  342 

Caniiicliaul.  In  re  (W  Ala.  514)  41 

V.  Carinicliat'l  (5  Iliini])li.  liG)  274 

V.  Carmichaul  (2  Phiil.  Ch.  101)  420 

V.  Foster  (GO  Ga.  ;J72)  1084,  108G 

V.  Kav  (5  Ired.  Eq.  ;J05)  375 

V.  KaV  (1  Kith.  21G)  .350 

V.  Sta'te  (12  0h.  St.  553)  222 

Caruall  v.  Wilson  (21  Ark.  02)       254,  2G0,  714 

Cariuu)  r.  Turner  (G  H.  &  J.  05)  1033 

Carnoclian  v.  Abrahams  (T.  U.  P.  Charlt. 

100)  420,  1208 

Carondelet  v.  Desnover  (27  Mo.  36)  826 

Carow  V.  Mowatt  (2"Edw.  Ch.  57)  572 

Carpenter,  In  re  (73  Cal.  202)  UQ'-i 

V.  Boiilden  (48  Aid.  122)  879,  881 

V.  Brownlee  (38  Miss.  200)  183 

V.  Calvert  (83  111.  62)  35,  37,  .38 

V.  Cameron  (7  Watts,  51)  503 

V.  Denoou  (29  Oh.  St.  379)  465,  494 

V.  Dod;,^e  (20  Vt.  595)  124 

V.  Garrett  (75  Va.  129  276,  277 

V.  Going  (20  Ala.  587)  427 

V.  Grav  (32  N.  .J.  Eq.  692)  580 

V.  HeaVd  (14  Pick.  449)  881 

V.  Murjjhy  (57  Wis.  541)  829 

V.  Probate  Jndge  (48  Mich.  318)     555,  55G 

r.  Solicitor  (L.  K.  7  P.  D.  235)  557 

Carr's  Estate  (25  Cal.  585)  581 

Carr  v.  Bradv  (04  Ind.  28)  221 

V.  Catlin"(13  Kan.  393)  295,  301 

V.  E.still  (IG  B.  Mon.  309)  898 

V.  Givens  (9  Bush,  679)  277 

V.  Green  (2  McCord,  75)  872 

r.  Iluette  (73  Ind.  .378)  431,  12G5 

V.  Lowe  (7  Heisk.  84)  359,  1247 

Carrick  v.  Carrick  (2:J  N.  .T.  Eq.  3G4)  744 

Carriere's  Succession  (34  La.  An.  1056)    1198 

Carroll  v.  Bonham  (42  N.  J.  Eq.  625)  S2 

V.  Carroll  (20  Tex.  731)  899 

V.  Connet  (2  -L  J.  :\Iarsh.  195)  -394,  513,  6G9 

17.  Cockerham  (-38  La.  An.  813)  1084 

V.  Huie  (21  La.  An.  561)  .582 

r.  Lee  (3  G.  &  ,J   .504)  607 

Carrolton  v.  nhoniberj?  (78  Mo.  547)  62G 

Carruthers  r.  Bailev,  (3  Ga.  105)         622,  fi72 

Carson  v.  Carson  (i  Met.  Ky.  .300)      149,  940 

V.  McFadden  (10  Iowa,  91)  624 

V.  Murray  (3  Pai.  483)  253,  2G5 

Carswell  v.  Spencer  (44  Ala.  204)  356 

Carter  v.  Anderson  (4  Ga.  516)  12-59 

V.  Balfour  (19  Ala.  814)  9-32 

V.  Barnadiston  (1  P.  Wms.  505)         HOG 

V.  Carter  (39  Ala.  579)  957 

V.  Carter  (10  B.  IMon.  327)    384,  410,  567 

V.  Crawler  (  T.  Rvan.  496)  148 

V.  Cutting  (5  Mun'f.  223)  1170, 1191 

V.  Dixon  (69  Ga.  82)  34,  50 

V.  Edmonds  (80  Va.  58)  1124 

V.  Hinkle  (13  Ala.  529)  177 

V.  Lowell  (76  Me.  342)  873 

V.  McManus  (15  La.  An.  676)    1031,  1054 

V.  National  Bank  (71  Me.  448)     386,  387, 

693 
r.  Parker  (28  Me.  509)  261 

V.  Randolph  (47  Tex.  376)  198,  199,  214, 

1075 
f.  Robbins  (8  Rich.  2D)  416 


Paprc 

Carter  r.  Waufrh  (42  Ala.  452)  1062 

V.  Worrell  (9G  N.  C.  358)  1098 

Carthev  v.  Webb  (2  Murph.  208)  522 

Cartwrij^Mit  v.  Cartwright  (4  llavw.  134)  677, 

1247 

V.  Cartwright  (1  Phillim.  90)  36 

Caruth  v.  Anderson  (24  Miss.  GO)  326 

Caruthers  v.  Caruthers  (2  Lea,  2(54)  725 

V.  Corbin  (38  Ga.  75)  774,  1157 

V.  Mardis  {3  Ala.  599)  73G 

Carver  v.  Hallett  (26  Ala.  722)  1171 

V.  Lewis  (104  Ind.  438)  1120 

Case,  In  re  (4  Dcm.  124).  69 

r.  Abeel  (1  Pai.  393)    283,  290,  291,  292, 

739 

V.  Case  (Kirbv,  284)  1099 

V.  Dennison  (9  R.  I.  88)  121 

V.  Phelps  (.39  N.  Y.  164)  610 

V.  Towle  (8  Pai.  479)  1208 

Casebolt  v.  Donaldson  (67  Mo.  308)  211 

Casev,  Ex  parte  (71  Cal.  269)  C81 

i:  Casev  (55  Vt.  518)  952 

V.  Gardiner  (4  Bradf.  13)  513 

V.  Inloes  (1  Gill,  430)  309 

V.  Murphv  (7  Mo.  App.  247)     1033, 1132 

Cash  V.  Dickens  (2  Lea,  2.54)  852 

Caskie  v.  Harrison  (76  Va.  85)  558 

Cason  r.  Cason  (31  Miss.  578)  1127,  1128,  12.30 

Casoni  v.  .Jerome  (58  N.  Y.  315)  553.  554,  589 

Casperson  v.  Dunn  (42  N.  J.  Eq.  87)  354,  672 

Cass  V.  Thomp.son  (1  N.  H.  65)  233 

Cassatt  v.  Vogel  (94  Mo.  646)  818 

Cassilv  V,  Mever  (4  Md.  1)  375 

Castleburv  r.'Mavnard  (95  N.  C.  281)        204 

Caston  r.Caston  (2  Rich.  Eq.  1)         271,  274 

Castor  r.  Jones  (80  Ind.  289)  61 

Castro  V.  Richardson  (18  Cal.  478)  498 

Catham  v.  State  (2  Head,  553)  307 

Cathey  r.  Kerr  (15  La.  An.  228)  1190 

Catholic  Association  v.  Flrnane  (50  Mich. 

82)  156 

Catlett  V.  Catlett  (55  Mo.  330)  65 

Cat-lin  V.  Underbill  (4  McLean.  337)  643 

Catter.son's  Appeal  (100  Pa.  St.  9)  1197 

Cauffmann  v.  Long  (82  Pa    St.  72)  469 

Caulfield  v.  Sullivan  (85  N.  Y.  153)  60,  495 
Caulkins  r.  Bolton  (98  N.  Y.  511)  749 

Cave  V.  Cave  (2  Vern.  508)  604 

Cavendish  r.  Fleminir  (3  Munf.  108)  1165 
Caviness  v.  Rushton  (101  Ind.  500)  58 

CawlHeld  v.  Brown  (45  Ala.  552)  1215,  1242 
Cawthon  v.  Coppedge  (1  Swan,  487)  1221 
Cawthorn  v.  Jones  (73  Ala.  82)  1133 

Cawthorne  v.  Havnes  (24  Mo.  23G)  490 

Cavuga  Bank  v.  Bennett  (5  Hill,  236)  736 
Cecil  i:  Cecil  (19  Md.  72)  1193,  1254 

r.  Rose  (17  Md.  92)  809,  994 

Central  Bank  r.  Little  (11  Ga.  346)  773 

Central  Park  Extension  (16  Abb.  Pr.  56)  240 
Chace  v.  Chace  (6  R.  I.  407)  111 

Chadbourn  i'.  Cliadbourn  (9  Allen,  173)    685 
Ciiadbourne  v.  Rackiiff  (30  Me.  354)         1050 
Chadwick  r.  Chadwick  (13  Pac.  R.  385)    353 
V.  Cornish  (26  Minn.  28)  831 

Chaffee  v.  Baptist  Miss.  Convention  (10 
Pai.  85)  66,71 

r.  Franklin  (11  R.  I.  578)  237 

Chaffin  V.  Hanes  (4  Dev.  L.  103)  789 

Chafin  Will  Case  (32  Wis.  5.57)  34 

Chalker  v.  Chalker  (5  Redf  480)  761 

Chalmers's  Estate  (64  Cal.  77)  216 


TABLE   OF   CASES. 


xlix 


PaRC 
Chalmers  v.  TLiniipfced  (21  S.  C.  12R)       IDC. 

214,  217 

V.  WinRfield  (I..  R.  30  Ch.  D.  400)      443 

Chamberlain  v.  (Jhambeilain   (43  N.  Y. 

424)  273,  912 

V.  Stearns  (111  Mass.  267)  933 

V.  Tavlor  (36  Hun,  24)  720 

V.  TaVlor  (105  N.  Y.  185)  728,  882 

V.  Williamson  (2  M.  &  Sfl,  408)  017 

Chamberiayne  v.  Ti;ini)le  (2  Kan.l.  384)     420 

Chamberliii  v.  Chaiiil)orliii  (4  Allen,  184)  103(5 

Chambers's  Appeal  (11  I'a.  St.  430)   078,  1129 

Chambers  v.  I5iimpass  (72  N.  C.  429)       1000 

V.  Cit3'  of  St.  Louis  (29  Mo.  543)        910, 

913,926 

V.  Davis  (15  B.  Mon.  .522)  272 

V.  McPhaiil  (55  Ala.  367)  1!)9 

V.  Smith  (2:;  Mo.  174)  1269 

V.  Wri-ht  (52  Ala.  444)  1228 

V.  Wright  (40  Mo.  482)  715 

Champion  i'.  Cavce  (54  Miss.  695)     843,  1032 

Champiiey  v.  Blanchard  (39  N.  Y.  Ill)    117, 

123,  124 

Chandler's  Appeal  (34  AVis.  .505)  726 

Chandler  v.  Haeiieldcr  (61  N.  H.  -370)       1227 

V.  Davidson  (6  Miackf.  367)  416,  419 

V.  Delaplaine  (4  Del.  Ch.  503)  723 

V.  Ferris  (I  Ilarr.  454)  36,  46 

V.  Hocket  (12  Iowa,  269)  782 

V.  Rider  (102  Mass.  268)  719 

V.  Schoonover  (14  Ind.  324)  698 

V.  Thompson  (Hob.  265  b)  404 

Chanev  i'.  Barker  (3  Bast.  424)  154 

u.'Brvan  (16  Lea.  63)  34 

Chipin  i\  Hill  (1  R.  I.  466)  268,  892 

V.  Marvin  (12  Wend.  5-38)  951 

V.  Waters  (110  Mass.  195)  6.54 

V.  Waters  (116  Mass.  140)  1103 

Chaplin  r.  Savvver  (35  Vt.  286)  205 

V.  Simmons  (7  T.  B.  Mon.  .3-37)  2-57 

Chapman  v.  Fenwick  (4  Cr.  C.  C.  431)     991, 

993 

V.  Halev  (43  X.  H.  -300)  8-54 

V.  Holii'^ter  (42  Cal.  462)  713 

17.  Kelloii-i?  (102  Mas^.  246)  ~  609 

V.  Robertson  (6  Pai.  627)  379 

V.  Schroeder  (10  (ia.  321)  230 

Chappel  V.  Averv  (6  Conn.  31)  951 

Chappell  V.  Akin  (39  Ga.  177)  570 

V.  Brown  (1  Bai.  528)  632 

V.  Chappell  (7  Eccl.  R.  451)  520 

Charles  v.  Hunnicutt  (5  Call,  311)  927 

V.  Jacobs  (9  S.  C.  295)  6.54 

Charlick's  Estate  (11  Abb.  N.  C.  56)  976 

Charlton's  Appeal  (34  Pa.  St.  473)  677 

Appeal  (88  Pa.  St.  476)  1242 

Chase's  Case  (1  Bland  Ch.  206)  248 

Chase  v.  Bradlev  (26  Me.  531)  684 

V.  Chase  (2"Allen,  101)  906 

V.  Fitz  (132  Mass.  359)  624 

V.  Kittredije  (11  Allen.  49)  67 

V.  Lincohr(3  Mass.  236)  473 

V.  Lockerman  (11  Gill  &  J.  185)  878, 

966,  1109 

V.  Reddinsr  (1.3  Grav,  418)     119,  127,  631 

V.  Ross  (36  Wis.  267)  330 

V.  Whitini,'  (.30  Wis.  544)  326,  1089 

Chasmar  v.  Bncken  (37  N.  .1    Eq.  415)       895 

Chaworth  ;•.  Beech  (4  Ves.  556)  61 

Cheairs  v.  Smith  (37  Jliss.  646)  952,  957 

Cheatham  v.  Burfoot  (9  Leigh,  580)  745, 1182 

VOL.  I.  —  d 


PllKG 

Cheatham  r.  Hatcher  (30  Grat.  56)       50,  476 

r.  Jones  (68  N.  (J.  1.53)  201 

Cheevcr  v.  Jn.lge  (45  Mich.  6)  499,  1194 

r.  llora  (22  Ga.  600)  10,58 

Chenerv  v.  Davis  (16  (Jrav,  89)  1141 

Chenev's  Case  (5  Co.  68  h)  8.)1 

Chenev  »•.  Chenev  (73  G.i.  66)  167,  170 

t'."Selman  (71  (Ja.  384)  893,  896 

Cherrv  r.  Jarratt  (25  Miss.  221)  1173 

r."  Spii^ht  (28  le.x.  503)  366 

Cheshire  r.  Cheshire  (2  Dev.  &  B.  254)      991 

V.  .Mct'ov  (7  Jones  L.  376)  270,  271 

Chesnut  i'.  Chesnut  (15  ill.  App.  442)  235,  2.53 
Ch.'snutt  V.  McBride  (1  Hei-^k.  38'J)  796 

Chess's  Appeal  (4  Pa.  St.  .52)  326 

Chester  r.  Chester  (L.  R.  12  Eq.  444)        910 

V.  Greer  (5  Humph.  26)  389,  991 

r.  Urwick  (23  Beav.  404)  976 

Chetle  V.  Lees  (Carthew,  167)  3.36 

Chevalier  v.  Wilson  (1  Tex.  161)  11.57 

Chew's  Appeal  (45  Pa.  St.  228)  9.59 

Estate  (2  Parsons,  1.53)  .577 

Chew  V  Chew  (3  (Jrant  Cas.  289)        570,  576 

V.  Chew  (1  Md.  16-3)  222 

V.  Nicklin  (45  Pa.  St.  84)  726 

Chewett  V.  Moran  (17  Fed.  R.  820)  1269,  1271 
Chewning  v.  Peck  (6  How.  Miss.  .524)  8.55 
Chicag-o  &  E.  L  R.  R.  v.  O'Connor  (119 

111.  586)  622 

Chicasro  &  N.  W.  R.  R.  v.  Chisholm  (79 

111.  584)  905 

Chicago,  B.  &  Q.  Railroad  v.  Gould    (64 
Iowa,  343)  526,  581 

V.  Wasserman  (22  Fed.  R.  872)  111 

Chicago  Dock  Co.  v.  Kinzie  (49  III.  289)  253 
Chicago  R.  R.  Co.  r.  Dovie  (60  Miss.  977)  630 
Chidester  v.  Chidester  (42  Ind.  469)  807 

Chidgev  r.  Harris  ( 16  M.  &  W.  517)  992 

Chighizola  v.  Le  Baron  (21  Ala.  406)  714 

Child  r.  Pearl  (43  Vt.  224)  608 

Childers  v.  Bumffarner  (8  Jones  L.  217)     296 

y.  Childers(21.Ga.  .'377)  901 

Children's  .\id  Societv  v.  Loveridge  (70 

N.  Y.  .387)  ■  46 

Childress  r.  Bennett  (10  Ala.  751)  375 

Childsr.  Russell  (11  Met.  16)  941 

V.  Updvke  (9  Oh.  St.  3-33)  685,  811 

Chinmark's  Estate  (Mvr.  128)  93,  1147 

Chinnubbee  r.  Nicks  (3  Port.  .362)  226 

Chipman  r.  Alontgomerv  (63N.  Y.  221)  1016 
Chism  V.  Williams  (29  Mo.  288)  91G,  917 

Chisolm  r.  Chisolm  (4  Rich.  Eq.  266)  1007 
Chittenden  v.  Knight  (2  Lee,  559)  529 

Choate  r.  Arrin^ton  (116  Mass.  5,52)         1120 

V.  Thorndike  (138  Mass.  371)  .5.=S0 

Chouteau  v.  Suj'dam  (21  N.  Y.  179)  684 

Chowning  v.  Stanfield  (40  Ark   87)  714 

Chrisman  v.  Chrisman  (18  Pac.  R.  6)  43 

Christ's  Hosp.  e.  (iraiuffer  (16  Sim.  83; 

S.  C.  1  Mac.  &  G.  460)  920 

Christian  r.  Clark  (10  Lea.  630)  434 

V.  Morris  (50  Ala.  585)  795 

Christie's  Succession  (20  La.  383)  185 

Christler  v.  Meddis  (6  B.  Mon.  35)  727 

Christman  v.  Siegfried  (5  W.  &  S.  400)  1223 
Christopher  v.  Christopher  (Dick.  445)       105 

V.  Cox  (25  Jliss.  162)  506 

Christophers  r.  Garr  (6  N.  Y.  61)  842 

Christv's  Appeal  (1  Grant  Cas.  369)       1214. 

1217,  1222 

Appeal  (110  Pa.  St.  5-38)  1196 


TABLE   OF   CASES. 


Pa<,'e 

Christy's  Succession  (6  La.  An.  427)  706 

ChristV  V.  Bad-iT  (72  Inwii,  581)  8114 

v.'Vest  (;J6  Iowa,  285)  440,  442 

(^hrvstie  V.  Phvfe  (19  N.  Y.  344)  871 

Church  V.  ChuVcii  (15  K   I.  138)  938.  944 

V.  Kenible  (5  Sim.  525)  1016 

1-.  Warren  Maiuif.  (  o.  (14  R.  T.  53!))  890 

Churcliill  r.  liovdeii  (17  Vt.  31!!)  375,  37U,  377 

V.  Churchill  (2  Met.  Kv.  406)  897 

V.  (Worker  (25  Ga.  479)  611 

V.  Monroe  (1  H.  I.  209)  252 

Cilley  V.  Cillev  (34  Me.  162)  37,  70 

Cincinnati  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Heaston  (43  lad. 

172)  1267 

Ciples  V.  Alexander  (3  Brev.  558)  795 

V.  Alexander  (2  Const.  R.,  S.  C.  767)  795 

Citizens'  Bank  v.  Sharp  (53  Md.  521)  365,  391 

Citizens'  M.  Ins.  Co.  v.  Ligon  (59  Miss. 

305)  283 

Clack  K>.  Clack  (20  Ala.  461)  1186 

Cla^ett  V.  Hawkins  (11  Md.  381)  498 

Claiborne  v.  Yoeman  (15  Tex.  44)  1080 

Clap,  In  re  (2  Low.  168)  282 

V.  Cofran  (7  Mass.  98)  553 

Clapp  V.  Beardslev  (1  Vt.  151)  595 

V.  Clapp  (44  iiun,  451)  758 

V.  Coble  (1  Dev.  &  B.  Eq.  177)  1147 

V.  Fullerton  (34  N.  Y.  190)      34,  41,  479 

V.  Ins-rahani  (126  Mass.  200)  656 

V.  Meserole  (38  Barb.  661)  1154 

Clare  v.  Hedges  (3  \V.  &  M.,  1  Lutw.  342)  405 

Clark's  Estate  (53  Cal.  355)  1138 

Estate  (3  Redf.  225)  1045,  1048 

Succession  (11  l.a.  An.  124)  488 

Will  (Tuck.  445)  91 

Clark,  Matter  of  (40  Hun,  233)  490 

Matter  of  (5  Redf.  466)  536 

V.  Atkins  (90  N.  C.  629)  880 

«.  B.iker  (14Cal.  612)  263 

V.  Blackington  (110  .Mass.  369)  387,  441, 

595 
V.  Bogardus  (2  Edw.  Ch.  387)  982 

V.  Bottorp  (1  Th.  &  C.  58)  230 

V.  Browne  (2  Sni.  &  G.  524)  974 

r.  Burnsidc  (15  111.62)  604 

V.  Carroll  (.59  Md   180)  624 

V.  Clark  (8  Cush.  385)  224 

V.  Clark  (86  Mo.  114)  607 

V.  Clark  (8  Pai.  152)  738,  1069 

V.  Clark  (17  Nev.  124)  135,  136 

V.  Clark  (21  Vt.  490)  1208 

V.  Clark  (6  W.  &  S.  85)  518.  520 

V.  Clement  (33  N.  H.  563)  360 

V.  Cress  (20  Iowa,  50)  1120 

».  Davis  (32  Mich.  154)  679,854 

V.  Denton  (36  N.  .1 .  Eq.  419)  719 

V.  Drake  (63  Mo.  354)  1085 

V.  Dnnnavant  (10  Leigh,  13)  472 

f.  Ellis  (9  Greg.  128)  37 

V.  Eubank  (65  Ala.  245)  855 

V.  Fisher  (1  Pai.  171)  39 

V.  Fleminir  (4  S.  E.  R.  12)  436 

r.  Head  (75  Ala.  373)  3,57 

».  Hogle  (52  111.427)  812 

V.  Holt  (16  Ark.  2.57)  358,  442 

V.  Hornthal  (47  Miss.  434)  718,  719 

V.  Jetton  (5  Sneed,  229)  978 

V.  Knox  (70  Ala.  607)      1139,  1143,  1169 
V.  Leupp  (88  N.  Y.  228)  957 

V.  IMiddlfSworth  (82  Ind.  240)      271,  7.30 
V.  Morton  (5  Rawie,  235)  483 


PafC 
Clark  V.  Miizzv  (43  N.  H.  59)  258 

V.  Ncwniaii  ((i  T.  B.  IMon.  342)  1165 

I'.  Niles  (42  Miss.  460)  543,  545,  577 

V.  Nolan  (38  Tex.  416)  198 

V.  Norwood  (12  La.  An.  598)  221 

V.  Parkville  R.  R.  (5  Kan.  634)    806,  826 
V.  Perry  (5  Cal.  58)  3.56 

V.  Pislion  (31  Me.  .503)  385 

V.  Piatt  (30  Conn.  282)  1163 

r.  Shallcr  (46  Conn.  119)  154 

V.  Shelton  (16  Ark.  474)      681,  082,  805, 

1131 
i\  Smith  (34  Barb.  140)  89 

r.  State  (12  Oh.  483)  42 

V.  Tainter  (7  Cush.  567)  721 

V.  Tonnison  (33  Md.  85)  962 

V.  Thompson  (47  III.  25)  1037 

V.  Warner  (6  Conn.  355)  1218 

V.  Willson  (27  Md.  693)   1219, 1221,  1223 

1267 

63 

103 

1145 

976 

556 

1120 

691,  738 

1124 

617 

1127 

546 

39 

89 

558 

1000 

435 

1190 

1004 

799 

42 

257 

1102 

171 

1163 

416, 


V.  Winchell  (53  Vt.  408) 
Clarke,  Goods  of  (1  Sw.  &  Tr.  22) 

r.  Berkeley  (2  Vern.  720) 

V.  Blount  (2  Dev.  Eq.  51) 

V.  Bogardus  (12  Wend    67) 

I'.  Chapin  (7  Allen,  425) 

V.  Clav  (31  N.  H.  393) 

V.  .Tenkins  (3  Rich.  Eq.  318) 

V.  Johnpton  (10  N.  J.  Eq.  287) 

V.  McClelland  (9  Pa.  St.  128) 

I'.  Perry  (5 Cal.  58) 

V.  Rice" (15  R.  I.  132) 

V.  Sawyer  (3  Sandf.  Ch.  351) 

V.  Scipps  (2  Rob.  563) 

V.  State  (6  G.  &  J.  288) 

V.  Terrv  (34  Conn.  176) 

t'.  Tufts  (5  Pick.  3.37) 

V.  West  (5  Ala.  117) 
Clarkson  v.  Clarkson  (18  Barb.  646) 

11.  De  Pevster  (Hopk.  274) 
Clary  v.  Clary  (2  Ired.  L.  78) 

V.  Sanders  (43  Ala.  287) 
Clason  V.  Lawrence  (3  Edw.  Ch.  48) 
Claudel  v.  Palao  (28  La.  An.  872) 
Clauser's  Estate  (84  Pa.  St.  51) 
Claussen  v.  Lafrenz  (4  G.  Greene,  224) 

419 
Clawson  v.  Clawson  (25  Ind   229)  613 

».  McCune  (20  Kan.  3.37)  808,846 

Clav  V.  Field  (115  U.  S.  260)  1046,  1062 

"«.  Giirlev  (02  Ala.  14)  3.54 

V.  Hart  (7  Dana,  1)  271,  724,  727 

V.  Irvine  (4  W.  &  S.  2.32)  642 

V.  .lackson  (!'.  U.  P.  Charlt.  71)  535 

V.  Waiter  ;79  Va.  92)  608 

Clavcnmb  V.  Clayconib  (10  Grat.  58f0       1171 

Claypool  V.  Norcross  (.36  N.  J.  Eq.  524)  1199 

'  V.  Norcross  (42  N.  J.  Eq.  545)  919 

Clavton  V.  Aiken  (38  Ga.  320)  985,  986 

'jj.  Brown  (30  Ga.  490)  609 

V.  Drake  (17  Oh.  St.  367)  151 

V.  Liverman  (2  Dev.  &  B.  L.  558)  56 

V.  Somers  (27  N.  J.  Eq.  230)  941 

r.  Tucker  (20  Ga.  452)  417 

v.  Warden  (2  Bradf.  1)  189 

Cleaver  v.  Cleaver  (39  Wis.  96)  9.39 

Cleaves  v.  Dockrav  (67  Me.  118)  553 

Cleere  v.  Cleere  (82  Ala.  581)  356 

Clegg  V.  Rowland  (L.  R  3  Eq.  368)  790 

Cleghorn  «.  .Johnson  (69  Ga.  369)  187 

Cle'land  v.  Waters  (16  Ga.  496)  880 

Clemens  v.  Caldwell  (7  B.  Mon.  171)  570,  575 


TAUr.E   OF   CASES. 


li 


Page  1 
Clemons  v.  Walker  (40  Ala.  180)  ";V2 

Clement's  Appeal  (W  Conn,  rjlii)  1122,  11-24, 

112r,,  Uau,  lU'.)  I 
Clement  v.  Brainard  (-tG  Conn.  174)  \.>.'A 

V.  Foster  (71  N.  C.  ;iti)  l('-i;i 

Clements  v.  Henderson  (4  Ga.  148)  l<):i7. 

11)48 

V.  Lacy  (51  Tex.  150)  200,  200 

V.  Kosers  (91  N.  C.  m)  'Ml 

V.  Swain  (2  N.H.  475)  420 

Clondeninfc  v.  CIvmcr  (17  Ind.  155)  !I78 

('lerv's  Apiieal  (%  I'a.  St.  54)  1 104 

Clevi-land  r.  Carson  (37  N.  .).  Eq.  377)       880 

V.  Cliandlor  (:j  Stew.  4810  545 

V.  Harrison  (15  Wis.  (170)  (iO.-J 

v.  Qiiilty  (128  .Mass.  578)  1203 

V.  Spiinian  (2')  Ind.  il.j)  8'J8 

Cliett  V  Cliett  (1  Tex.  Unrep.  Cas.  408)      80 

Clifford  V.  Davis  (22  111.  App.  310)  1007 

Clift  V.  Kaufman  (f;0  Tex.  04)  l!)0 

V.  Moses  (44  Hun,  312)  030 

Cline's  Appral  (100  I'a.  St.  017)  283,  08:) 

Cline  V.  Lindsev  (110  Ind.  337)         31,  40,  41 

Clinuan  v.  Miti-lieltree  (31  I'a    St.  25)  'J2 

Clopton  V.  Booker  (27  Ark   482)  371 

I'.  Hausliton  (57  Miss.  787)  1123 

Cloud  V.  Barton  (14  Ala.  347)  1037 

V.  Bruce  (01  Ind.  171)  151 

V.  Cllnkinbeard  (8  B.  Mon.  3D7)  975,  tt8l 

r.  Golisrhtlv  (5  Ala.  0.54)  308 

Cloudas  V.  Adams  (4  Dana,  003)  100:j 

Clounh  v.  ClouRh  (117  Mass.  83)  118 

Cluett  V.  Mattiee  (43  Barb.  417)  535 

Clute  V.  Bool  (8  Pai.  83)  950 

Clvce  V.  Anderson  (49  Mo.  37)        1132,  1137, 

1104 

Coale  r.  Smith  (4  Pa.  St.  370)  888 

Coati'.  Coat^03Ill.  73)  1084 

Coatos's  Estate  (12  Phila.  171)  184 

Coates  V.  Clieever  (1  Cow.  400)  229 

V.  Coates  (33  Beav.  249)  976 

V.  (Jerlach  (44  Pa.  St.  43)  611 

V.  Hushes  (3  Binn.  4:)8)  980 

Cobb  V.  Beardslev  (37  Barb.  192)  538 

V.  Brown  (Speers  Eq.  5:14)  432,  042 

V.  Newcomb  (19  Pick.  330)  519,  530,  533 


V.  Norwood  (11  Tex.  5.50)  03: 

V.  Tavlor  (04  N.  C.  193)  699 

V.  Wood  (1  Hawks,  9.j)  337 

Cobble  V.  Tomlinson  (50  T'd.  550)  290 

Cobiirii  I'.  Harris  (58  Md.  87)  838 

V.  Looinis  (49  Me.  400)  1125,  1186 

Cochran  v.  Miller  (74  Ala.  50)  201 

V.  Thompson  (18  Tex.  052)  432,740 

V.  YoimiT  (104  Pa.  St.  333)  498,  501 

Cochrane's  Will  (1  T.  B.  Mon.  203)  40 

Cochrane  ('.  Robinson  (11  Sim.  377)  790 

V.  Sorrell  (74  Ala.  310)  210 

Cockavne  v.  Harrison  (L.  K.  13  Eq.  4-32)  1001 

(^ockburn  r.  Wilson  (20  La.  An.  39)  699 

Cocke  V.  Hailev  (42  Miss.  81)  2-37 

V.  Finlev  (2;)  Miss.  127)  390 

V.  Phillips  (12  Leiffh,  248)  232 

Cockin's  Appeal  (111  Pa.  St.  20)  901 

Cockrill  I'.  Armstrong  (31  Ark.  .580)  233 

('(K-kroft  r.  Black  (2  P.  Wms.  298)  787 

Cocks  r.  Varnev  (42  N.  -T.  Eq.  514)  303 

Coddin-  I'.  Newman  (3  Tb.  .S:  C.  304)        513 

CoddiiiKton  v.    Bispham   (30  N.  J.    Eq. 

•221)  1227,  1230,  1208 

Cody  i\  Conly  (27  Grat.  313)  55 


Pajre 
Codv  r.  Raynaud  (1  Col.  272)  324 

Coe'v.  .lames  (54  Conn.  511)  949 

V.  Talcott  (5  Dav,  88)  1000 

Cofer  V.  Flanni-an  ('l  (ia.  .538)  712 

Coffee  V.  Rufliu  (4  Coldw.  4«7)  1 150 

Coffev  r.  Joseph  (74  Ala.  271)  210 

CoiHn  V.  Cottle  (4  Pick.  454)  085 

V.  Otis  (11  Met.  1.50)  495 

Cogbill  V.  Coiibill  (2  Hen.  &  Munf.  467)     93, 

1190 
Cogburn  v.  McQueen  (46  Ala.  551)  588 

Cogdell  V.  Widow  (3  Desaus.  340)  900 

Coggeshall  v.  Pelton  (7  .loiin.  Ch.  292)  919 
Coggins  V.  Griswold  (04  Ga.  323)  1047, 1089 
Cogswell  V.  Cogswell  (2  Edw.  Ch.  231)     1000 

V.  Tibbeits  (3  N.  H.  41)  220.  227  . 

Cogwell  V.  Lvon  (3  .1.  .1.  Marsh.  38)  1206 

Cohea  V.  State  (34  Miss.  179)  554 

Cohen's  Appeal  (2  Watts,  175)  577 

Will  (Tuck.  280)  04 

Cohen  V.  Atkins  (73  Mo.  163)  1199 

Coit  V.  Campbell  (82  N.  Y.  509)  675 

V.  Comstock  (51  Conn.  352)  920 

Coke  V.  Bullock  (Cro.  Jac.  49;    1   R<dl. 

Abr.  616)  103 

Coker  V.  Crozier  (5  Ala.  369)  618,  025 

Colbcrg,  Goods  of  (2  Curt.  832)  DO 

Colbert  V.  Daniel  (32  Ala.  314)  357,  371 

Colburn  v.  Broughton  (9  Ala.  351)  055 

r.  Had  lev  (46  Vt.  71)  935 

Colbv  V.  Duncan  (139  Mass.  .398)  942 

V.  King  (07  Iowa,  458)  846.  801 

r.  Jloodv  (19  Me.  Ill)  330,  337 

Cole's  Will  (49  Wis.  179)  34,  37 

Cole  r.  Cole  (19  Mart.,  7  N.  S.  414)  20 

r.  Cole  (79  Va.  251)  948 

V.  Dial  (12  Tex.  100)  579.  .581 

V.  Elfe  (23  Ga.  2-35)  175,  707 

V.  Wooden  (18  N.  J.  L.  1.5)  Wl,  7-53 

Colegrave  r.  Dias  Santos  (2  B.  &  C.  70) 
Coleman's  Succession  (27  La.  An.  289) 
Coleman  r.  Brooke  (37  Miss.  71) 
V.  Eberlv  (70  Pa.  St.  197) 
V.  Hall  (12  Mass.  570) 
V.  Hall  (12  Mass.  588)  792 

V.  Lane  (26  Ga.  515)  992 

V.  McMurdo  (5  Rand.  51)  1182 

V.  Parker  (114  Mass.  30)  123 

V.  Ravnor  (3  Cold.  25)  583 

«.  Robertson  (17  Ala.  84)  44 

V.  Wood  worth  (28  Cal.  507)  803 

Coles  V.  Coles  (15  .Tohns.  159)  289 

V.  Coles  (15  Johns.  319)  254,  2.^8 

V.  Yorks  (31  Minn.  213)  215 

Colev's  Estate  (14  Abi).  Pr.  401)  1184 

Colifan  V.  McKeon  (24  X.  J.  L.  500)  310 

Colgate  r.  Coli^-ate  (23  N.  J    Eq.  372)  207 

Colsrove  r.  Hortou  (11  Pai.  201)         543,  544 
Coliasan  r.  Burns  (57  Mp.  449)  90 

Collamore  v.  Wilder  (19  Kan.  07)      841,  1203 
I  Colles,  Matter  of  (4  Dem.  387)  1184 

1  t\)llier's  Will  (40  Mo.  287)  941,  942 

Collier  V.  Cairns  (0  Mo.  App.  188)  286,  298,  300 
V.  Collier  (3  Oh.  St.  369)  171,  708 

e.  Grimsev  (-36  Oh.  St.  17)  719 
V.  Jones  (80  Ind.  342)                              425 

f.  Munn  (41  N.Y.  143)  1108 
V.  Slaughter  (20  Ala.  203)  963 

Colliers  r.  Hollier  (13  La.  An.  585)  576 

Collins.  In  re  (5  Redf.  21)  64 

V.  Bankhead  (1  Strobh.  25)  366,  385 


002 
188 
ISO 
8 '3 
«.-,■> 


lii 


TABLE   OF   CASES. 


Collins  V.  Bergen  (42  N.  J.  F.q.  07) 
V.  Carman  (5  Mil.  bO'-i) 
V.  Collins  (140  Mass.  502) 
V.  Collins  (19  011.  St.  4G8) 
V.  Collins  (40  Oh.  St.  ;J&;i) 


K. 


East  Tennessee  K 
841) 

V.  Hollier  (13  La.  An.  585) 
V.  Hoxie  (9  Pai.  81) 
V.  Pillou  (20  Conn.  368) 
V.  Spear  (Walk.  310) 
V.  Tilton  (58  Ind.  374) 
V.  Townlev  (21  N.  J.  Kq,  353) 
V.  Warren  (29  Wo.  23G) 
Collinson  v.  Owens  (0  G.  &  J.  4) 
CoUumb  V.  Read  (24  N.  Y.  505) 
Coilver  V.  Collver  (4  Dem.  53) 
'v.  Collver  010  N.  Y.  481) 
V.  Cross  (20  Ga.  1) 
Colson  V.  Brainard  (1  Redf.  324) 
Colt  V.  Colt  (32  Conn.  422) 

V.  Hubbard  (33  Conn.  281) 
V.  Lasnier  (9  Cow.  320) 
Coltart  V.  Allen  (40  Ala.  155) 
Colton  V.  Colton  (21  Fed.  R.  .594) 


(9  H.isl 
ti: 


Page 

938 

270.  351 

1128 

3.54 

871,  884 


029 

1119 

898,  1147 

850 

404 

1176 

43 

257 

1039 

289 

482 

1150,  1198 

1259 

1030,  1030 

798 

942 

693 

582 

7 


571,  58: 


V.  Colton  (127  U.  S.  300)      870,  875,  870, 

877 
V.  Ross  (2  Pai.  396)  497 

Coltraine  v.  Cause}'  (3  Ired.  Eq.  240)  632 

Columbus    Ins.    Co.  v.    Humphries     (04 

Miss.  258) 
Colvin,  Matter  of  (3  Md.  Ch.  278) 

V.  Warford  (20  Md.  357) 
Colwell  V.  Alijer  (5  Grav,  07) 
Comb's  Appeal  (105  Pa'.  St.  155) 
Comber's  Case  (1  P.  Wms.  760) 
Combs,  In  re  (3  Dem.  341) 

V.  Combs  (67  Md.  11) 

V.  Jolly  (3  N.  J.  Eq   625) 

V.  Young(4  Yerg.  218) 
Comegys  v.  Jones  (65  Md.  317) 
Comer  t'.  Chamberlain  (0  Allen.  166) 


834, 


836 
209 


V.  Comer  (119  III.  170) 
V.  Comer  (120  III.  420) 
V.  Hart  (79  Ala.  389) 
Cometo's  Estate  (Mvr.  42) 
Comins  v.  Hetfield  (80  N.  Y.  261) 
Commercial  Bank  v.   Corbett   (5    Sawv. 

543) 
Commissioners  v.  Greenwood  (1  Desaus. 
450) 
V.  Way  (3  Oh.  103) 
Commissioners  of  Charitable  Donations  v. 

De  Clifford  (1  Dr.  &  War.  245) 
Commissioners  of  Emigration  (1  Bradf. 

2.59) 

Commonwealth  v.  Bryan  (8  S.  &  R.  128)   000, 

661,  063 
V.  Chace  (9  Pick.  15)  596 

V.  Duffield  (12  Pa.  St.  277)  6,56 

V.  Forney  (3  W.  &  S.  353)  542,  543,  545, 
555  719 
■y.  Griffith  (2  Pick.  11) 
V.  Hackett  (102  Pa.  St.  505) 
V.  Hite  (6  Leigh.  588) 
V.  Hunt  (4  Cush.  49) 
V.  Judges  (10  Pa.  St.  37) 
V.  Laub  (1  W.  &  S.  261) 
V.  Lewis  (6  Binn.  266) 
V.  Manley  (12  Pick.  173) 


P.age 
Commonwealth  v.  Martin  (5  Munf.  117)       22 
V.  Mateer  (10  S.  &  R.  410)    401,  511,  752 
V.  Naile  (88  Pa.  St.  429)  305 

V.  Nancrede  (32  Pa.  St.  389)  141,  522 

V.  No.  Am.  Land  Co.  (57  Pa.  St.  102)  294. 

310 

V.  Rich  (14  Grav,  335)  4(9 

V.  Richardson  (8  1$.  IMon.  81)  6;:2 

V.  Selden  (5  Munf.  160)  307 

V.  Shelbv  (13  S.  &  R.  348)        1094,  1107 

V.  Stauffer  (10  Pa.  St.  350)  903 

V.  Strohecker  (9  Watts,  479)  748 

V.  Sturtivant  (117  Mass.  122)  480 

Compher  v.  Compiler  (25  Pa.  St.  31)  170,  173 

Compo  V.  Jackson  (.50  Mich.  578)  1234 

Compton  V.  Barnes  (4  Gill,  55)  1149 

r.  Bloxham  (2  Coll.  201)  486 

r.  Compton  (9  East,  208)  879 

V.  McMahan  (19  Mo.  A  pp.  494)   717,  727, 

728 

r.  Mitton  (12  N.  J.  L.  70)  70,  71 

V.  Pruitt  (88  Ind.  171)  263,  1074 

Comstock's  Appeal  (55  Conn.  214)  817 

Comstock  v.  Crawford  (3  Wall.  396)  583 

V.  Hadlvme  (8  Conn.  254)  K2,  37,  74, 1103 

V.  Smith  (20  Mich.  300)  339 

V.  White  (10  Abb.  Pr.  264,  note)  293 

Conaiit  V.  Kent  (130  Mass.  178)  147 

V.  Little  (1  Pick.  189)  2  8 

r.  Stratton  (K  7  Mass.  474)  435 

511,  707    Conard  t\  Atlantic  Ins.  Co.  (1  Pet.  386)     771 

401,  402,    Condict  v.  King  (13  N.  J.  Eq.  375)    880,  916, 

972   994 

99.  loO    Condit  v.  Winslow  (106  Ind.  142)  1140 

435.  1264    Conger  r.  Atwood  (28  Oh.  St.  134)  1142, 1143 

477  V.  Babcock  (87  Ind.  497)  1190 

409  1'   Cook  (50  Iowa,  117)  1020,1041 

1007    Congregational  Church  v.  Morris  (8  Ala. 

948        182)  310 

01    Coiiigland  v.  Smith  (79  N.  C.  303)  047 

218    Conklin  v.  Egerton  (21  Wend.  430)     393,  720 

879,  885    Conley  v.  Bovle  (6  T.  B.  Mon.  637)  12(15 

276    Connaughtoii  r.  Sands  (32  Wis.  387)  181 

Connecticut   Co.  v.   New  York   Co.  (25 

Conn.  205)  620 

Connell  v.  Chandler  (11  Tex.  249)      188,  191, 

21.5,  216 

V.  Chandler  (13  Tex.  5)  032 

Conner  v.  Mcllvaine  (4  Pel.  Ch.  30)  74'^,  1181 

V.  Root  (17  Pac   R.  773)         117,  119,  837 


1217,  1223 
1241 
1059,  1003 

204 


772 
554 


920 
398 


366 
890 
307 
225 
1204 
554 
771 
639 


v.  Shepard  (15  Mass.  104) 
Connollv  v.  Branstler  (3  Bush,  702) 

y.  Pardon  (1  Paige,  291) 
Connor  v.  Eddv  (25  Mo.  72) 

V.  McMurfav  (2  Allen,  202) 
Conolv  V.  Gavle'(01  Ala.  116) 
Conover  v.  Porter  (14  Oh.  St.  450) 

V.  Walling  (15  N   J.  Eq.  167) 

V.  Wright  (6  N.J.  Eq.  613) 
Conowav  v.  Spicer  (5  Harr.  425) 
Conrad  v.  Long  (33  Mich.  78) 
Consalus,  In  re  (95  N.  Y.  340) 
Conselvea  v.  Walker  (2  Dem.  117) 
Conser  t).  Snowden  (54  Md.  175)  119 

Constantinides  v.  Walsh  (146  Mass.  281) 
Constitution  v.  Nelson  (2  111.  511) 
Contee  v.  Chew  (1  H.  &  J.  417) 


229 
275 
893 

1078 
212 
884 
251 

1194 
274 
736 
9!: 
654 
475 
120 
702 

1208 
773 


957,  9h8 


Continental  Co   v.  Barber  (.50  Conn.  567)   844 

Converse  v.  Converse  (21  Vt.  168)  43,  44 

V.  Sorlev  (39  Tex.  515)  808,  826 

V.  Starr  (23  Oh.  St.  491)  495 


TABLE    OF   CASES. 


liii 


Page 
Conwav  v.  Kllison  (14  Ark-  300)  ll;J2 

Conwjll  V.  Coiiwill  (01  Miss.  21)2)     1128,  12.J() 
Coocli  V.  Cooch  (5  lit.ust.  5-lU>  lO'JU,  UlU 

Cook's  Estate  (14  Cal.  12!))  805 

Cook  V.  Burton  (5  liuAi,  04)  074 

v.  Carr  (19  Mel.  1)  527 

e.  Cook  ('J2  Ind.  3'J8)  HIO 
V.  Cook  (20  N.  J.  L.  ;i75)  727 
t).  Cook  (24  S.  G.  204)  385,  757 
V.  Grant  (10  Serg.  &  U.  l'J8)  75 
V.  Gre<^son  (3  Drew.  547)  657 
«.  Holmes  (11  Mass.  528)  878 
V.  Holmes  (2!)  Mo.  61)  751 
V.  Hortoii  (129  Mass.  527)  1197 
V.  Laiuiins  (40  X.  J.  Eq.  309)  893,  989 
V.  Lewis  (30  Me.  340)  294,  300 
V.  Lowrv  (95  N.  Y.  1-3)  919 
V.  McChristian  (4  CaL  23)  194 
V.  Muiin  (12  Abb.  N.  C.  344)  940 
V.  Roberts  (09  Ga.  742)                          210 

f.  Sanders  (15  Rich.  6.3)  423 
1-.  Weaver  (12  Ga.  47)  873 
I'.  Wiiitiufr  (10  IU.480)  597 

Cooke  c.  Cooke  (29  Md.  538)  078 

V.  Meeker  (36  N.  Y.  15)       994,  995,  1000 

».  Piatt  (98  N.  Y.  35)  719 

Cool  V.  Higu;ins  (23  N.  .1.  Eq.  308)  705 

Coolev  V.  Brown  (30  Iowa,  470)  631 

V.  Smith  (17  Iowa.  99)  800 

r.  Vansyckle  (14  N.  J.  Eq.  490)  677,  llo2 

Coolidse  V.  Melvin  (42  N.  H.  510)  610 

Coombs  r.  Lane  (17  Tex.  280)  1080 

Coon  V.  Bean  (69  Ind.  474)  124-4 

V.  Frv  (6  iMich.  506)  330 

Coope  D.  Lowerre  (1  Barb.  Ch.  45)  526 

Cooper  V.  Armstrona:  (3  Kan.  78)     1208,  1209 

y.  Bockett(10  Jiir.  931)  94 

V.  Burr  (45  Barb.  9)  123 

V.  Cooper  (L.  R.  7  H.  L.  53)  1016 

i;.  Cooper  (5  N.J.  Eq.  9)  570,578 

V.  Cooper  (77  Va.  198)  271,  703 

V.  Horner  (62  Tex.  356)  661 

V.  Jud^e  (19  Me.  260)  1198 

V.  Merrihew  (Rilev  Eq.  166)  284 

V.  Reid  (2  Hill  Cli.  549)  284 

V.  Remsen  (5  John.  Ch.  459)  958 

V.  Robinson  (2  Cush.  184)  1050 

V.  Simmons  (7  H.  &  N.  707)  033 

V.  Sunderland  (3  L.wa,  114)        329, 1046 

V.  White  (19  Ga.  554)  645 

Coot  V.  Bertv  (12  Jlod.  232)  226 

Coote  V.  WliittinKton  (L.  R.  16  Eq.  534)     421 

Coover's  Appeal  (52  Pa.  St   427)  519 

Cope  ('.  McFarland  (2  Head,  543)  797 

Copeland  v.  Barron  (72  Me.  206)  948,  949, 1000 

V.  Copeland  (7  Bush,  349)  230 

Copenhaver  v.  Copenhaver  (78  Mo.  55)      149 

V.  Copenhaver  (9  Mo.  A  pp.  200)  149 

Copp  V.  Hersey  (31  N.  H.  317)  208, 1010 

Cojipaije  I'.  Alexander  (2  B.  Mon.  313)       961 

Coppeis'  Estate  (4  Phila.  378)  702 

Copper  V.  Weils  (1  N.  J.  Eq.  10)  595 

Coppin  V.  Dillon  (4  Hai?";.  301)  529 

Corbett  v.  Rice  (2  Nev.^330)  803,  1123 

Corbin  v.  Mills  (19  Grat.  438)  906 

I'.  Wilson  (2  Ash.  178)  941 

Corbitt  V.  Dawkins  (54  Ala.  282)  1077 

Corby  r.  Corby  (85  Mo.  371)  870 

CordevioUe's  "Succession    (24    La.    An. 

319)  1063 

Cordrey  v.  Cordrey  (1  Houst.  269)  32 


Page 
Cordwell's  Estate  (L.  R.  20  Eq.  044)  976 

Corlass,  In  re  (L.  R.  1  Cu.  D.  400)  8j5 

Corn  V.  Corn  (4  Dem.  394)  572 

Conieby  v.  (iibbons  (1  Rob.  705)  62 

Cornelius,  Will  of  (14  Ark.  075)  66 

Cornell  v.  Gallalier  (16  (al.  367)  525 

V.  Loveft(35  Pa.  St.  100)  962 

Cornett  v.  Williams  (20  Wall.  226)  329,  1089 
Corni.sh  i\  Willson  (0  (iill,  299)  1090,  1107 
Cornoy  V.  Cornog  (3  Del  Ch.  407)  236 

Cornpropst's  Appeal  (33  Pa   St.  537)  524 

Cornwall's  Estate  (  Tuck.  2.50)  1038 

Cornwell  v.  Deck  (8  IIuu,  122)  711 

V.  Riker  (2  Dem.  3.54)  43 

V.  Woolley  (47  Barb.  .327)  74 

Corporation  v.  Hammond  (1  Harr.  &  J. 

580)  252 

Corrington  v.  Corrington  (15   III.    App. 
393)  708 

V.  Corrington  (16  N.  East.  252)    719,  726, 
727,  1084 
Corrv  V.  Lamb  (12  N.  East.  660)  268 

Corwin's  Estate  (61  Cal.  100)  1199 

Cirwin  v.  Merritt  (3  Barb.  341)  1031 

Corwine  v.  Corwine  (24  N.  J.  Eq.  579)  989 
Cory  V.  Corv  (37  N.  J.  Eq.  198)  271,  949 

Corvton  v.  Hel  var  (2  Cox,  340 1  882 

Cosbv  V.  Gilchl-i.st  (7  Dana,  200)  537 

Coste"n's  Appeal  ( 13  Pa.  St.  292)  1071 

Costephens  v.  Dean  (09  Ala.  385)      430,  431, 

433 
Coster  V.  Clarke  (3  Edw.  Ch.  428)  290 

Costlev  V.  Tarver  (38  Ala.  107)  1075 

v.'Towles  (40  Ala.  660)  284 

Cothran  v.  McCoy  (33  Ala.  65)  1044 

Cotter's  Estate  (54  Cal.  215)  532 

Estate  (Mvr.  179)  532 

Cottercll  V.  Brock  (1  Bradf.  148)  543,  544 

Cottle,  Appellant  (5  Pick.  483)  571 

V.  Vanderheyden  (11  Abb.  Pr.  N.  s. 
17)  516 

Cotton  V.  Jones  (37  Tex.  34)  838,  845 

V.  Smithwick  (06  Me.  3(50)  894 

V.  Tavlor  (4  B  Mon.  3.57)  530,  .531 

t).  Ulmer  (45  Ala.  378)  34,-36 

Cottrell  V.  Woodson  (11  Heisk.  681)  836 

Couch  «.  Eastham  (29  W.  Va.  784)  871,  884 
Coudert  v.  Coudert  (43  N.  J.  Eq.  407)  109 
Coughanour  v.  Hoffman  (13  Pac.  231)  215 
Coulson  V.  Holmes  (5  Sawy.  279)  102 

Coulter's  Case  (5  Co.  30)  422,  420 

Council  V.  Averett  (95  N.  C.  131)  718 

County  Court  r.  Bissell  (2  Jones,  .387)  571 
Courtenay  v.  Williams  (3  Hare,  539)  150,  976, 

1237 
Courtney  v.  Hunter  (1  Cr.  C.  C.  265)  373 
CousinsV.  Jackson  (52  Ala.  262)  835 

V.  Paddons  (2  Cr.  M.  &  R.  547)  792 

Coutant  V.  Schuvler  (1  Pai.  310)  122 

Covell  V.  Weston  (20  John.  414)  1271 

Cover  V.  Stem  (67  Md.  449)  61,  62 

Coverdale  v.  Aldrich  (19  Pick.  391)  655 

Covert  V.  Sebern  (35  N.  W.  R.,  Iowa,  030)  351 
Covin's  Estate  (20  S.  C.  471)  976 

Covington  r.  Lattimore  (88  N.  C.  407)  710 
Cowan  V.  JIusgrave  (35  N.  W.  R.,  Iowa, 

496)  829,  831 

Cowden  v.  Dobvns  (5  S.  &  M.  82)  341 

Cowdin  r.  Perr^-  (1 1  Pick.  .503)  1153 

Cowdrev  V.  Cowdrev  (131  Mass.  186)  205 

V.  Hitchcock  (103  111.  202)    175,  269,  270 


liv 


TABLE   OF   CASES. 


1104 
14U 
8!2 
'JOB 
943 


Cowell  V.  Roberts  (79  Mo.  218)  824 

r.  Watts  ((J  I'.ast,  40;.)  7;J4 

Cowgi.l  V.  Liiiville  (20  Mo.  App.  138)        744 
("owiiis  V.  Tool  (;;(>  Iowa,  82)  1122.  1124 

Cowles  V.  Cowles  ( 13  All.  li.  414)  980 

r.  Hayes  (71  N.  C.  230)  539,753 

Cowling  V.  Nauseinond  Justices  (6  Rand. 

349)  552 

Cox  V.  Brown  (5  Ired.  L.  194)  178,  183 

V.  Codv  (75  Ga.  175)  181 

V.  Coikendall  (13  N.,J.Eq.  138) 

V.  Cox  (44  Iiid.  308) 

V.  Cox  (84  N.  C.  138) 

V.  Ciirwen  (118  Mass.  198) 

i;.  Harris  (17  Md.  23) 

V.  Harvev  (1  Tex.  Unr.  Cas.  268)  200.  212 

V.  John  (32  Oh.  St.  532)  1129 

V.  McBurnev  (2  Sandf.  561)  596 

V.  McKinneV  (32  Ala.  401)  941 

V.  Rogers  (77  Pa.  St.  160)  1016 

V.  Roonie  (38  N.  J.  E(|.  259)  711 

V.  Schermerhorn  (18  Hun,  16)  1107 

V.  Scott  (9  Baxt.  305)  639,641 

V.  Thomas  (9  Grat.  323)  328 

Cove  V.  Leach  (8  Met.  371)  935 

Coyle  V.  Creevv  (34  La.  An.  539)  196 

Cozart  r.  Lvon791  N.  C.  282)  354 

Cozzens's  Will  (01  Pa.  St.  196)  65 

Cozzens  v.  Jamison  ( 12  Mo.  App.  452)        1('3 

Crabb  v.  At  wood  (10  Ind  322)  825 

r.  Young  (92  N.  Y.  56)  708 

Craddock  v,  Riddlesbarger  (2  Dana,  205)  597, 

598 

Cragg  V.  Riggs  (5  Redf.  82)  1004 

Craig  V.  Beattv  (U  S-  C.  375)  500 

V.  Craig  ('3  Barb.  Ch.  76)  121 

V.  Leslie  (3  Wheat.  563)       655,  728,  1233 

V.  McGehee  (16  Ala.  41)  1034 

V.  Secrist  (54  Ind.  419)  921 

V.  Walthall  (14  Grat.  518)  271 

r.  Wroth  (47  Md.  281)  337 

Craige  v.  Morris  (25  N.  J.  Eq.  467)  257 

Crain  v  Grain  (21  Tex.  790)  61 

Cram  v.  Gram  (33  Vt.  15)  42 

V.  Green  (6  Ohio,  429)  1124 

Cramer  v.  Crumbaugh  (3  Md.  491)  50 

Cramp's  Appeal  (81  Pa.  St.  90)  1131 

Cramp  v.  Plavfoot  (4  K.&  J.  479)  910 

Crane  v.  Cava'na  (36  Barb.  410)  265 

V.  Crane  (31  [owa,  296)  157 

V.  Crane  (17  Pick.  422)  167,  169,  170 

V.  Guthrie  (47  Iowa,  542)  636 

V.  Hopkins  (6  Ind.  44)  793 

*;.  Moses  (13  S.  C.  561)  1242 

V.  Reeder  (21  Mich.  24)  305 

Cranmer  v.  McSwords  (24  W.  Va.  594)  1094, 

1109,  1111 

Cranson  v.  Cranson  (4  Mich.  230)        127,  245 

Crapo  V.  Armstrong  (61  Iowa,  697)    761,  1144 

Craslin  v.  Baker  (8  Mo.  437)  418,  432 

Cravath  v.  Plvmpton  03  Mass.  454)  618,  026 

Craven  v.  Winter  (38  Iowa,  471)  261 

Cravens  v.  Faulconer(28  Mo.  19)  68 

r.  Logan  (7  Ark.  103)  751 

Crawford' V.  Blackburn  (19  :\rd.  40)  ll'.iS 

V.  Bradv  (35  Ga.  184)  041 

V.  Graves  (15  La.  An.  243)  3'i6 

V.  Redus  (54  Miss.  700)  1127,  1180 

V.  Thompson  (91  Ind.  266)  964 

V.  Tvson  (46  Ala.  299)  575,  .576 

V.  Ward  (49  Ga.  40)  1208 


Pa^'e 

Crav  i:  Willis  (2  P.  Wms.  529)  991 

Creiigh  V.  Blood  (2  Jones  .V  LaT.  509)  39 

Creatli  v.  IJreiit  (3  iJana,  12;))  395,  572 

Crecelius  c.  il(ir>t  (78  Mo.  506)  937 

V.  Horst  (89  Mo   35li)  231,  248 

V.  Horst  (4  Mo.  Ajip.  419)  248 

V.  Hor>t  (9  Mo.  App.  51)  937 

V.  Horst  (1 1  Mo.  Aj.p.  3ii4)  246,  247 

Credle  v.  Credle  (Busb.  L.  225)  1217 

Creed  v.  Creed  (11  CI.  &  lin.  491)  988 

Creelv  v.  Ostrander  (3  Bradf.  107)  43,  47 

Cregili  V.  Brooklvn  Co.  (75  N.  Y.  192)       G20 

V.  Brooklyn  Co.  (83  N.  Y.  595)      615,  621 

Crenshaw  v.  Carpenter  (69  Ala.  572)  271 

V.  Crenshaw  (2  H.  &  M.  22)  602 

Cresse,  Matter  of  (28  N.  J.  Im].  236)  533 

Cresfeon's  Appeal  (30  Pa.  St.  437)  928 

Cresswell's  Succession  (8  La.  An.  122)      706 

Creswell  v.  Lawson  (7  G.  &  J.  227)  952 

V.  Slack  (68  Iowa,  110)         .300,  361,  1026 

Creveling  v.  Jones  (21  N.  J.  L.  517)  880 

Crickard  v.  Crickard  (25  Grat.  410)  710 

Crickett  v.  Dolbv  (3  Ves.  10)  1007 

Ciilev  V.  Chamberlain  (30  Pa.  St.  161)      949 

Crippen  v.  Crippen  (1  Head,  128)     1035,  1036 

V.  Dexter  (13  Grav,  330)  493 

Crispell  V.  Dubois  (4  Barb.  393)  50 

Crispin  v.  Wiiikleman  (57  Iowa,  523)         425 

Crissman  v.  Crissnian  (5  Ired.  498)  874 

V.  Crissman  (23  Mich.  217)  612 

Crist  V.  Crist  (1  Ind.  570)  990 

Crittenden's  Estate  (Mvr.  50)  71 

Croade  v.  Ingndiam  (13  Pick.  33)  254 

Crocker  v.  Chase  (57  Vt.  413)  477,  490 

V.  Smith  (10  111.  App.  376)  1264 

Croft  V.  Bolton  (31  Mo.  355)  640 

V.  Williams  (88  N.  Y.  384)  737 

Crofton  V.  Ilslev  (4  Me.  134)  493 

Crolius  V.  Stark  (64  Barb.  112)  42 

Crolly  V.  Clark  (20  Fla.  849)  494 

Cromartie  v.  Kemp  (66  N.  C  382)  146 

Crombie  v.  Engle  (19  N.  J.  L.  82)     332,  1 130 

Cromer  v.  Pincknev  (3  Barb.  Ch.  466)       899 

Cronan  v.  Cottina:  (99  Mass.  334)        650.  795 

Crone's  Appeal  (103  Pa    St.  571)  989 

Cronin's  Estate  (Mvr.  252)  1240 

Croninger  v.  Marthen  (83  Kv.  662)  865 

Cronise  v.  Hardt  (47  Md.  433)         1070.  1233 

Crook  V.  Whitlev  (7  DeG.  M.  &  G.  490)     899 

Crooke  v.  Coimtv  (97  N.  Y.  431)  656 

Crooker  v.  Jewe'll  (31  Me.  306)  387 

Crooks's  Estate  (Myr.  247)  324 

Crosbie  r.  McDoual  (4  Ves.  610)  86.  113 

Crosbv's  Estate  (55  Cal.  574)  1028 

Crosbv  V.  Dowd  (61  Cal.  557)  713,  844 

v:  Mason  (32  Conn.  482)  354,  8;i2 

V.  McWillie  (11  Tex.  94)  808 

Crosland  v.  Murdock  (4  McCord,  217)        501 

Cross  V.  Brown  (51  N.  H.  481)  631,  632 

V.  Maltbv,  (L.  R.  20  Eq.  378)  881 

Crossan  v.  McCrary  (37  Iowa,  684)  1129, 

1185.  1258 
Crossbv  V.  Geering  (cited  2    Ld.  Ravm. 

972)  797 

Crouch  V.  Circuit  Judges  (.52  Mich.  596)    854 
V.  Davis  (23  (irat.  62)  975,976 

V.  Eveleth  (12  Mass.  503)  10,28 

V.  Happer  (5  Lea,  171)  675 

Crow  V.  Dav  (60  Wis.  037)  861 

V.  Hubard  (62  Md.  560)  164 

V.  Weidner  (36  Mo.  412)  299 


TABLE   OF   CASES. 


Iv 


r.i  (■ 

Crowdcr  V.  Shackclfuid  (35  -Miss.  .■;21 )     Hi), 
1142,  1147,  I2i>i 
Crowe  I'.  Peters  (03  Mo.  429)  41 

Crowey,  In  re  (71  Cal.  30U)  I'J'.t,  '2UU 

Crowii'inshield  v.  Crowiiiiishield  (2  Gray, 

524)  .3(5 

Croxall  v.  Sherurd  (5  Wall.  208)  12.i:J 

Croxtoii  v.  HeniR-r  (K).'!  liul.  22:1)     '  S'.)-') 

Crozier's  Appeal  (UO  I'a.  St.  ;j84)  270 

Crozierw.  Goodwin  (1  Lea,  3(18)         401,  1204 
Cruce  r.  Cruce  (21   111.  4(5)  170,  187,  7<;8 

V.  Cruce  (81  Md.  070)  IIVJ 

Cruder  r.  licvwanl  (2  Des.  94)  915 

Cruiksluuik  v.  Luttrell  (07  Ala.  318)  1047, 
1050,  1059,  1001,  1004,  1005 
Cruize  v.  Billmire  (09  Iowa,  397)  233,  275 
Cruni  I'.  Bliss  (47  Conn.  592) 
Crumley  v.  Deake  (8  Baxt.  3G1)  ■ 
Crump  f.  Faueett  (70  N.  C.  345) 

V.  Mor{j;an  i3  Ired.  Kq.  91) 
Crunkletou  v.  Wilson  (1  Browne,  301) 


930 
270 
149 
224 
414, 
417 
494 
78 
1038 
211 
9.")2 


Crusoe  v.  Butler  (30  Miss.  150) 
Crutcher  v.  Cratcher  (11  Hnmpli.  377) 
Culbertson  v.  Coleman  (47  Wis.  193) 

V.  Cox  (29  Minn.  209) 
Culin's  Appeal  (20  Ba.  St.  243) 
Cullen  V.  O'llara  (4  Mich.  132)     418,  427,  072 
Cullerton  v.  Mead  (22  Cal.  95)  807,  840 

Culver  w.  Hardenbergh  (37  Minn.  225)    1029, 

1072 
V.  Haslam  (7  Barb.  314)  41 

Culvert  t".  Yundt  (112  Ind.  401)  339 

Cumberland  v.  Codrington  (3  John.  Ch. 

229)  1093 

Cummings  v.  Allen  (34  N.  H.  194)    104,  109, 

189 
V.  Bradlev  (57  Ala.  224)  099,  1151 

V.  Corev  (58  Mich.  494)  870 

V.  Cum'mings  (123  Mass.  270)  320 

V.  Cummings  (143  Mass.  340)    1122,  1230 
V.  Cummings  (51  Mo.  201)  102,  177,  187, 

231 
V.  Plummer  (94  Ind.  403)  897 

Cummins  v.  Denton  (1  Tex.    Unr.   Cas. 

181)  214,  215 

Cunninijham's  Estate  (54  Cal.  556)  499 

Cunninirham,  In  re  (30  N.  W.  K.  209)   90,  98 

V.  Cunnin-ham  (18  B.  Mon.  19)  945 

V.  Somerville  (30  N.  \V.  209)   90,  98,  480, 

484 
V.  Souza  (1  Redf.  402) 
Curd  V.  Benner  (4  Coldw.  032) 

V.  Curd  (9  Humph.  171) 
Curie  V.  Curie  (9  B.  Mon.  309) 

V.  Moore  (1  Dana.  445) 
Curley's  Succession  (18  La.  An. 


Curley  v.  Hand  (53  Vt.  524) 

c.  Tomlinsou  (5  Daly,  283) 
Curling  r.  Curling  (8  Dana,  38) 
Curraii  v.  Kuby  (37  Minn.  330) 
Curren  v.  Taylor  (19  Oh.  30) 
Currey,  Goojs  of  (5  Not.  Cas.  54) 

V.  Warrington  (5  Ilarr.  147) 
Currie  v.  ("urr'ie  (90  N.  C.  553) 
V.  McNeill  (83  N.  C.  170) 
V.  Steele  (2  Sandf.  542) 
I'.  Stewart  (20  Miss.  040) 
Currier  r.  Creen  (2  N.  H.  225) 
V.  Lowell  (10  Pick.  170) 


410,  543 

1125 

173 

774 

303,  309 

1051, 

1054 

820 

333 

922, 931 

108.) 

154 

530 

287 

423 

699 

118 

1040 

10.-18 

075 


01) 


Currv  r.  liiatnev  (29  Ind    195) 
V.  iJrvant  (7  Bush,  301) 
V.  Currv  (10  llun,  300) 
(•.  CurrV  (114  I'a.  St.  307) 
V.  Inilkinson(14  Uii.  100) 
V.  Peebles  (83  Ala.  225) 
V.  Peoi)le  (54  III.  203) 

Curser's  Administratiim  (89  N.  \' 

Curtis  V.  Bailev  (1  Piek.  199) 
V.  Burt  (34  Ala.  729) 
V.  Curtis  (3  Add.  33) 
V.  Fowler  (33  N.  W.  P.  804) 
V.  Fulbrook  (8  Hare,  278) 
V.  llobart  41  .Me.  230) 
V.  Lukin  (5  Beav.  147) 
V.  National  Bank  (39  Oh.  St.  579) 
V.  Probate  Judge  (35  Mich.  220) 
V.  Stilwell  (32  Barb.  354) 
V.  Sutter  (15  Cal.  259) 
V.  Williams  (33  Ala.  570) 

Curtiss  f.  Beardsley  (15  Couu.  518) 


Page 
499 
809 
204 
824,  830 
042 

1271 

1004 
52) 

1182 

530,  582 

480 


131 

710 
201 
995 
757 
188 
807 
712 
530 
1202, 
1204 
12(J2 
1102 
885 


Curts  V.  Brooks  (71  111.  125) 
Cushing's  Will  (58  Vt.  393) 
Cushiug  /•.  Avhvin  (12  .Met.  109) 

V.  Blake '(30  N.  J.  Eq.  089)  236,  276,  277, 

1233 

V.  Burrell  (137  Mass.  21)  971 

Cushman  r.  Horton  (5;J  N.  Y.  143)  902 

Cushnev  r.  Henrv  (4  I'ai.  345)  903 

Cnstis  V.  Potter  (1  Houst.  382)  1006,  1008 

Cuteiiin  V.  Wilkinson  (1  Call,  1)  510,  535 

Cuthbert  i-.  Purrier  (2  Phi II.  C.  C.  109)  1015 
Cutlibertson's  Appeal  (97  Pa.  St.  103)  43,  49 
Cutlar  V.  Quince  (2  Havw.  GO)  522,  539 

Cutler  V.  Howard  (9  Wis.  309)  505,  577 

Cut  HIT  V.  Bovd  (72  Ga.  302)  J219,  1223,  1242 
Cutright;  V.  Stanford  (81  III.  240)  1229,  12JS 
Cutting  V.  Cutting  (80  N.  V.  522)  653 

V.  Oilman  (4i  N.  H.  147)      117,  123,  121 

V.  Tower  (14  Gray,  181)  623 

Cuttu  v.  Gilbert  (9  Moo.  P.  C.  131)  97,  98,  484 


Daball  V.  Field  (0  R.  I.  200)      140,  939,  1123 

Dabnev's  Appeal  (120  Pa.  St.  344)  707 

Dabv  r.  Ericson  (45  N.  Y.  780)  281 

DailV  V.  Daily  (06  Ala.  200)  643,  757 

Dakin  i'.  Hudson  (6  Cow.  221)  325 

Dale  V.  Dale  (38  N.  J.  Eq.  274)  49 

V.  Havs  (14  B.  Mon.  315)  499 

V.  Lincoln  (02  111.22)  611 

Dallam  v.  Dallam  (7  Harr.  &  J.  220)  959 

Dalrvmple  v.  Dalrvmple  (2  Hagg.  Cons. 

R."54)  '  222 

V.  Gamble  (66  Md.  298)  510.  636,  57 1 

V.  Gamble  (08  Md.  150)  1150,  1151 

Daly's  Appeal  (47  Mich.  443)  1049 

"Estate  (Tuck.  95)  737 

Dameron  r.  Dameron  (19  Mo.  317)  681 

Damon  r.  Damon  (8  Allen,  192)  54 

Damouth  v.  Klock  (29  Mich.  289)  414 

Dainrell  v.  Hartt  (137  Mass.  218)  878 

Dan  V.  Brown  (4  Cow.  483)  481 

Dana's  Case  (Tuck.  113)  607 

Dancv  v.  Pope  (08  N.  C.  147)  798 

V.  Stricklinge  (15  Tex.  ,557)  3-30 

Dandridge  v.  Minge  (4  Rand.  397)  111  5 

Danforth  r.  Smitli  (23  Vt.  247)  200 

Daniel  r.  Board  of  Com'rs  (74  N.  C.  494)  840 

V.  Daniel  (39  Pa.  St.  191)  43 


Ivi 


TABLE   OF    CASES. 


Page 

Daniel  v.  Jackson  (53  Ga.  87)  10o7,  1004 

V.  Siiiitli  (04  Cal.  340)  122 

t'.  Stough  (73  Ala.  370)  1083 

Daniels  i\  Fond  (21  Pick.  307)  004 

V.  Riciiaidson  (22  Pick.  UC^o)  51)4 

Danzey  i'.  Smith  (4  Tex.  411)  632 

V   Swiniiev  (7  Tex.  017)  8til 

Darbv  r.  Maver  (10  Wheat.  465)  490,  501 

Darden  v.  Harrill  (10  Lea,  421)  939,  940 

Darke,  Goods  of  (1  Sw.  &  Tr.  510)  509 

Darland  r.  Taylor  (52  Iowa,  503)  124 

Darne  v.  Llovd  (82  Va.  859)  1214, 1216, 

1220 

Darrah  v.  Baird  (101  Pa.  St.  265)  600 

Darrel  v.  Eden  (3  Des.  241)  11.5'J 

Darrington  v.  Borland  (3  Port.  9)  1095 

Darston  v.  Orford  (Pr.  Ch.  188)  780 

D'Arusnient  r.  Jones  (4  Lea,  251)  451 

Dascomb  v.  Marston  (13  Atl.  K.  888)   922, 1103 

Dashiell  v.  Attorney  General  (5  Harr.  &  J. 

392)  928,  9.32 

r.  Attorney  General  (G  H.  &  J.  1)       925 

Daudt  V.  Musick  (9  Mo.  App.  109)      212,  271 

Danghertv  r.  Daughertv  (09  Iowa,  677)     2);7 

Dauser  i;.'^Jereniiah  (3  Redf.  130)  351 

Davenport  v.  Caldwell  (10  S.  C.  317)  347 

V.  Irvine  (4  J.  J.  Marsh.  60)  577 

V.  Lawrence  (19  Tex.  317)  1187 

V.  Kicliards  (16  Conn.  310)  654 

V.  Sargent  (63  N.  H.  538j  986, 1098, 

1099 
Da  vers  v.  Dewes  (3  P.  Wms.  40)  1019 

Davev  v.  Turner  (1  Dall.  11)  248 

David  V.  David  (56  Ala.  49)  198 

Davids,  Matter  of  (5  Deni.  14)  1023 

Davidson  v.  Davidson  (28  La.  An.  269)    1048, 

1083 
V.  Davis  (80  Mo.  440)  201,212 

V.  Moore  (14  S.  C.  251)  1104 

V.  Potts  (7  I  red.  Kq.  272)  432 

Davie  r.  Briggs  (97  U.  S.  028)  445 

V.  McDaniel  (47  Ga.  195)     325,  1030, 1037 
V.  Stevens  (10  La.  An.  496)  500 

Davies,  Goods  of  (2  Curt.  028)  520 

V.  Bush  (1  Younge,  341)  980 

V.  Hodgson  (25  Beav.  177)  292 

V.  Steele  (38  N.  J   Ef|.  108)  910 

w.  Topp  (1  Bro.  Ch.  524)  1272 

V.  Wattier  (1  Sim.  &  Stu.  463)  990 

Davis's  Appeal  (23  Pa.  St.  200)  1180 

Appeal  (.34  Pa.  St.  256)  190 

Estate  (05  Cal    .309)  1172 

Estate  (30  Iowa,  24)  229,  231 

Estate  (1  Phila.  300)  1170 

Davis,  In  re  (69  Cal.  408)  212 

In  re  (02  Mo.  450)  1137,  1138 

Succession  of  (12  La.  An.  399)  542 

V.  Bartholomew  (3  Ind.  485)         249,  2.50 
V,  Ballard  (7  T.  B.  Mon.  603)  330 

V.  Brandon  (1  How.  Miss,  154)  1008 

V.  Callahan  (78  Me.  313)  1018 

V.  Calvert  (5  G.  &  J.  269)  31,  45 

V.  Christian  (15  Grat.  11)  281,  282 

V.  Connelly  (4  B.  Mon.  1-30)  371,  416 

V.  Crandall  (101  N.  Y,  311)      960,  1012, 
1014,  1128 
V.  Davis  (2  Addams,  223)  481 

V.  Davis  (6  Ala.  611)  1128   1231 

V.  Davis  (31  L.  J.,  P.  M.  &  A.  216)    510 
V.  Davis  (123  Mass.  590)  47 

t;.  Davis  (5  Mo.  183)  123,  248 


Davis  V.  Davis  (8  Mo.  56) 

V.  Davis  (39  N.  J.  Lq.  13) 
V.  Dunn  (74  Ga.  36) 
V.  Kstey  (8  Pick.  475) 
V.  French  (20  Me.  21) 


Page 

892 

901,  1008 

201 

375,  377 

7'j5 


V.  Hoover  (112  Ind.  423)     718,  719,  1023 
V.  Howard  (56  Ga.  430)  1030 

V.  Inscoe  (84  N,  C.  390)  513 

V.  King  (89  N.  C.  441)  95,  112 

V.  Krug  (95  Ind.  1)  141 

V.  Logan  (9  Dana,  185)  233 

V.  Marcum  (4  Jones  Eq.  189)  61. 8 

V.  Mason  (1  Pet.  503)  276,  277 

V.  Newman  (2  Hob.  Va.  664)  1229 

V.  Newton  (6  Met.  Mass.  537)  1015 

V.  Perry  (96  N.  C.  200)  1029 

V.  Phillips  (32  Tex.  504)  363 

V.  Kowe  (6  Rand.  355)  131,  146 

V.  Rogers  (1  Houst.  44)  52,  76 

V.  Rogers  (1  Houst.  183)  408 

V.  Shuler  (14  11a.  4.8)  397,  506,  567 

V.  Sigournev  (8  Met.  Mass.  487)     89,  482, 

484 
V.  Smith  (82  Ala.  198)  290 

V.  Smith  (5  Ga.  274)     673,  677,  775,  777, 
779,  791 
V.  Smith  (75  Mo.  219)  340,  816,  817 

V.  Smith  (58  N.  H.  10)  531,  564 

V.  Stewart  (4  Tex.  223)     lOGl,  1062,  1194 
V.  Stinson  (53  Me.  493)  147 

V.  Swanson  (54  Ala.  277)  631 

V.  Taul  (0  Dana,  51)  883,  936 

V.  Touchstone  (45  Tex.  490)     1037,  1047, 

1062 
V.  Vansands  (45  Conn.  600)  1228,  1271 
r.  Walford  (2  Ihd.  88)  558,  738 

V.  Walker  (2  Harr.  125)  1146 

V.  Whittaker  (.38  Ark.  435)  978 

V.  Williams  (85  Tenn.  646)  917,  1102 

V.  Wright  (2  Hill  S.  C.  .[.GO)  1138 

V.  Yerby  (1  Sm.  &  M.  Ch.  508)  697, 

1004 
Davison's  Will  (Tuck.  479)  494 

Davison  v.  Whittelsev  (1  McArth.  163)       255 
Davisson  v.  Burgess  (31  Oh.  St.  78)  1033 

Davoue  v.  Fanning  (2  John.  Oh.  252)  700,  701, 

718 

Daws  V.  Boucher  (3  Y.  &  Coll.  397)  978 

Dawdy  v.  Nelson  (12  111.  App.  74)  823 

Dawes  v.  Bovlston  (9  Mass.  337)         375,  387 

V.  Head "(3  Pick.  J28)  375,  376,  377 

i;.  Shed  (15  Mass.  0)  841,866 

V.  Wmship  (5  Pick.  96,  note)  692 

Dawson  v.  Dawson  (Rice  Eq.  243)  61 

V.  Dawson  (2  Strobh.  Eq.  34)  61 

V.  Godfrey  (4  Cra.  321)  22 

V.  Holt  (44  Tex.  174)  198 

V.  Macknet  (42  N.  J.  Eq.  633)  1219 

V.  Parham  (47  Ark.  215)  1067 

«.  Small  (L.  R.  18  Eq.  114)  934 

V.  Smith  (3  Houst.  335)  91,  98 

Day,  Ex  parte  (1  Br.  df.  476)  57 

Day's  Succession  (3  La.  An.  624)  1173 

Day  V.  Adams  (42  Vt.  510)  197 

V.  Brown  (2  Ohio,  345)  1066 

V.  Cochran  (24  Miss.  261)  277 

V.  Day  (3  N.  J.  Eq.  549)  52,  484 

V.  Micou  (18  Wall.  150)  337 

Davhuff  V.  Davhuff  C27  Ind.  158)  828 

Dayton  v.  Barilptt  (:^8  Oh.  St.  357)  286 

I'.  Donart  (22  Kan.  256)  195,  2G6 


TABLE   OF    CASES. 


Ivii 


Davton  v.  Fisher  (34  Iiid.  350)  (il2 

'  V.  Aliiilz.r  (22  Minn.  3'J3)  326,  1052 

V.  Wiilvus  (17  How.  Tr.  ulO)  '292 

Dea.l.'iick  r.  Cantnli  (10  Y.rg.  203)  738 

Deake's  Appeal  (12  Atl.  7itO)  400 

Deakiiis  I'.  Ilollis  (7  Gill  &  .1.  311)         71,  75 

Duan's  Appeal  (87  Pa.  St.  24)  1031,  1033 

Estate  (02  Cal.  G13)  ll'.)7 

Succession  (33  La.  An.  807)  GO'J 

Dean  v.  Hiyjuers  (27  Ga.  73)  393,  400 

V.  Central  Tress  Co.  (04  Ga.  070)        1022 

V.  Uean  (3  Mass.  258)  1038 

V.  Dean  (7  T.  li.  Mon.  304)  741,  742 

V.  Dean  (27  Vt.  740)  37,  70 

V.  Dean  (43  Vt.  337)  124 

V.  Dullield  (8  Tex.  235)  806,  812 

V.  Hart  (02  Ala.  308)  207,  273 

I'.  Ne-lev  (41  I'a.  St.  312)  48 

V.  I'hinUett  (130  Mmss.  195)  288 

V.  Sui)eriur  Court  (03  Cal.  473)  1258 

V.  Wade  (8  La.  An.  85)  1044 

t'.  Warnock  (US  I'a.  St.  505)  830 

Dearborn  v.  Preston  (7  Allen,  192)     150.  1240 

Deardslev  v.  Fleniinj;  (Cas.  Temp.  Lee,  98)   51 

Dearing,"  Matter  of  (4  Dem.  81)  58;) 

Dearnian  v.  Dearnian  (4  .Via.  521)  095 

Deas  0.  Spann  (Harp.  Ch.  170)  1107 

Dease  V.  Cooper  (40  Miss.  114)  '  190 

De  Bar  v.  Priest  (6  Mo.  App.  531)  250 

De  Barante  v.  Gott  (0  Barb.  41)2)  608 

Deberry  v.  Ivev  (2  .Jones  Kq.  370)       651,  7t)8 

Debesse  v.  Napier  (1  McCord,  100)  419 

De  Boisblanc's  Succession  (32  La.  An.  17)    180 

De  Bruler  v.  Keri^uson  (54  Ind.  549;  922 

De  Camp  v.  Dobbins  (29  N.  .1.  Kq.  36)       934 

De  Castro  v.  Barry  (18  Cal.  90)  1244 

V.  Kiehardson  (25  Cal.  49)  330 

Deck  V.  Gerke  (12  Cal.  433)  357,  1123 

V.  Gherke  (6  Cal.  GOO)  1155 

Decker  v.  Decker  (121  111.  341)  8SD.  893,  894, 

1018,  1096 

V.  Decker  (74  Me.  465)     1084,  1089, 1091 

V.  Fisher  (4  Barb.  592)  590 

V.  Morton  (1  Redf.  477)  345 

Decoster  v.  Wing  (70  Me.  450)  146 

Decrow  i\  Moody  (73  Me.  100)  1012 

Decuir's  Succession  (23  La.  An.  106)    577,  581 

De  Dieniar  v.  Van  Wagenen  (7  .Jijhn.  404)    083 

Deeks  v.  Strutt  (5  Term  R.  090) 

Deen  v.  Cozzens  (7  Robt.  178) 

Deere  v.  Chapman  (25  III.  010) 

Deering  v.  Adams  (34  Me.  41) 

Deerv  r.  Hamilton  (41  Iowa,  10) 

Dees'u.  Tiidon  (2  La.  An.  412) 


Paiie 
Delatield  v.  Shipman  (34  Hun,  514)  937 

De  La  Guerra  v.  Packanl  (17  Cal.  182)       427 
De  Lane's  Case  (2  Brev.  107)  549,  581 


130) 


993 

575 

21)0 

1194 

731,  732 

437,  1003, 

1078 

De  Flechier's  Succession  (1  La.  An.  20)    401, 

577 
Deford  V.  Deford  (.36Md.  108)  943 

De  France  v.  Johnson  (20  Fed.  R.  8^1)  22 i 
De  Groffiv.  Terpenning(14Hun,301)  978,981 
Dehart  v.  Dehart  (15  Ind.  107)  340,  815 

De  Haven's  Appeal  (100  Pa.  St.  112)  1057 
Deichman's  Appeal  (2  Whart.  ?95)  775 

Deig  i:  Morehead  (110  Ind.  451)  409 

Deihl  V.  King  (6  Serg.  &  R.  2'.))  950 

Delabigarrer.  Second  Municipalitv  (3  La. 

An.  230)  ■  684 

Delafield  v.  Barlow  (107  N.  Y.  535)  727 

v.  Parish  (25  N.  Y.  9)  31,  32,  44,  SH 

V.  Parish  (1  Redf.  1)  105 

V.  Schuchardt  (2  Dem.  435)       711 


198 

1062 

31 

1234 

482 
1001 
1118 


Delanev's  Estate  (37  Cal 

Estate  (49  Cal.  70) 
Delanevv.  Salina  (34  Kan.  532) 
Delany  I,'.  Noble  (3  N.  .L  Ei|.  441) 
Delapiaine,  In  re  (5  Deui.  398) 

r.  Lawrence  (3  N.  Y.  391)  1000, 

De  La  Salle  v.  Moorul  (L.  i;.  11  En.  8) 
De  La  Saussaye,  In  re  (L.  R.  3  P.  &  D. 

42)  101 

De  Laurencel  v.  De  Boom  (67  Cal.  362)     902 
Delaware,  &c.  R.  K.  v.  Gilbert  (44  Hun, 

201)  689 

Delay  v.  Vinal  (1  Met.  Mass.  57)  271 

De  L"eon  v.  Barrett  (22  S.  C.  412)  1 140 

Delmotter.  Tavlor  (1   Redf.  417)         110.  120 

Deltzer  v.  Scheuster(37  111.301)  171,  187 

Demarest's  Estate  (1  Civ.  Pr.  R.  .302)         541 

Demarest  v.  Wvnkoop  (3  .John.  Ch.  129)   595 

Dement  i:  Ilarth  (45  Mis>.  ;;88)  1125 

Deming's  Appeal  (34  Conn.  201)  857 

Dennnert  v.  Sehnell  (4  Redf.  409)  47 

Demond  v.  Boston  (7  Grav,  544)  622 

Denipsev's  Will  (Tuck.  5i)  513 

Den  V.  Combs  (18  N.  J.  L.  27)  880 

f.  Dodd(G  N.J.L.307)  2.54 

V.  English  (17  N.  J.  L.  280)  881 

V.  Gibbons  (22  N.  J.  L.  117)         34,  .37,  47 

V.  Hance(ll  N..J.L.244)  952 

v.  Hunt  (U  N.. I.L.I)  1045 

V.  Jaques  (10  N.  .1.  L.  259)  1208 

V.  Johnson  (5  N.  J.  L.  4.54)  43 

V.  Johnson  ( 18  N.  J.  L.  87)  247 

V.  Mugwav  (15  N.  J.  L.  330)  881 

V.  MeMurtrie  (15  N.  J.  L.  276)  880 

V.  Messenger  (33  N.J.  L.  499)  953 

V.  Vaneleve  (5  N.  J.  L.  589)  43 

Deneale  v.  Morgan  (5  Call,  407)  724 

Denegre  r.  Denegre  (33  La.  An.  689)  3.50 

Denise  v.  Denise  (37  N.  J.  Eq.  163)    940, 12.6 

Denison's  Appeal  (29  Conn.  399)  490 

Denn  v.  King  (1  N.J.  L.432)  719 

Denne  v.  Judge  (11  East.  288)  72i 

Dennett  v.  Dennett  (40  N.  U.  498)  88  i 

V.  Hopkinson  (63  Me.  350)  5!)!1 

Dennick  v.  Railroad  (103  U.  S.  11)  629 

Dennis's  Estate  (07  Iowa,  110)  178 

Dennis  v.  Ward  r  (3  B.  Mon.  173)  890 

V.  Winter  (03  Cal.  10)  1090 

Dennison  v.  Talmage  (29  Oh.  St.  433)         499, 

1192,  1199 

Dennisfoun  v.  Hubbell  (10  Bosw.  155)        779 

Dennv  v.  Dennv  (113  Ind.  22)  177 

V.  Faulkner  (22  Kan.  89)  3t;0 

V.  Moore  (13  Ind.  418)  828 

V.  Pinnev  (12  Atl.  R.  108)  48,  09 

r.  TurneV  (2  Mo.  App.  ,52)  280,  300 

Densler  v.  Edwards  (5  Ala.  31)  419 

Denson  v.  Beazlev  (34  Tex.  191)  34,  42 

V.  Mitchell  (20  Ala.  300)  874,  884 

Dent  V.  Ashley  (Hemps.  54)  300.  ■Ull 

Denton,  In  re  (33  Hun,  317)  1012 

In  re  (102  N.  Y.  200)  1000.  1012 

V.  Clark  (.30  N.  J.  Eq.  534)  719,  720,  884 

V  Franklin  (9  B.  Mon.  28)  ^8 

V.  Sandford  (103  N.  Y.  007)  686,  711, 1126 

De  Peyster  v.  Clarkson  (2  Wend.  77)         1177 

).'."Clendining  (8  Pai.  295)  512,  885 

Depriest  v.  Patterson  (92  N.  C.  399)  700 


Iviii 


TABLE   OF    CASES. 


Dequindre  v.  Williams  (31  Iiid.  414)  ."329,  108U 
Deraisiiies  ?•.  Deraissmes  (72  N.  Y.  154)  1 151 
Derby  v.  Derby  (4  H.  1.  4U)  DC.  lUUj 

Deriiiger  v.  iJcringcr  (5  llmist.  410)  3U8,  5U'J 
De  Rosa  v.  De  Tiiiua  (2  Cas.  Temp.  Lee, 

300)  507 

D.  rrv's  Estate  (Mvr.  202)  71 

De  Saussiire   r.  Lyons  ('J  S.  C.  402)  718 

Desesbats  v.  Berquier  (1  Biiin.  33tj)  405 

Desiiover  v.  Jordan  (27  Minn.  205)      608,  642 
De-paid  r.  Cluircliill  (53  N.  Y.  102)     375,  379 
Destrehan   v.   Destreliau  (4   Mart.   N.   S. 
557)  1216 

V.  Destrelian  (16  Mart.  557)  150 

Desverges  v.  Desverges  (31  (Ja.753)  1242 

Detweiler's  Appeal  (44  Ta.  St.  243)  187 

Detwiller  v.  Hartmau  (37  N.  J.  Eq.  347)  017, 

034 
Deupree  v.  Deiipree  (45  Ga.  414)  107 

De  Valengin  »  Duflv  (14  I'et.  282)  304,  645 
Devaughn  v.  Devauglm  (10  Grat.  650)  200 
Devaynes  v.  Hobinson  (24  Beav.  86)  732 

De  Veaux  v.  De  Veaux  (1  Strobh.  Eq. 

283)  806 

Devecmon  v.  Devpcmon  (43  Md.  335)  77 

Devereaux  v.  Devereaux  (78  N.  C.  380)  1007 
Devlin   V.  Commonwealth  (101   Pa.  St. 

273)  451 

Devling  r.  Little  (26  Pa.  St.  502)  734 

Dew  V.  Barnes  (1  Jones  Eq.  149)  880 

Dew  V.  Clark  (3  Add.  Ecel.  R.  79)  33,  34,  35 
Devvev  r.  Dewev  (1  INIet.  Ky.  349)  68 

V.  Van  Ueusen  (4  Pick.  10)  595 

De  Witt  ('.  Barley  (13  Barb.  314)  41 

«.  Brands  (jO  All.  181)  1220 

V.  Sewing  Machine  Co.  (17  Neb.  533)  201 
Dewitt  (,-.  Yates  (10  Johns.  156)  069,  970 

De  Wolf  V.  Lawson  (61  Wis.  469)        727,  017, 

020 

V.  Murpbv  (11  R.  I  6-30)  237,  242 

Dexheiaier  y.'Cautier  (5  Rob.  N.  Y.  216)  120, 

121 
Dexter  v.  Arnold  (3  Mason,  284)  1255 

V.  Brown  (3  Mass.  32)  1208 

V.  Gardner  (7  Allen,  243)  92.3,  034 

V.  Phillips  (121  Mass.  178)  1011 

V.  Shepard  (117  Mass.  480)  1052 

V.  Sirobach  (56  Ala.  233)  199 

Dey  V.  Codman  (39  N.  J.  Eq.  258)    731,  1145, 

1151 

V.  Williams  (2  D.  &  B.  Eq.  66)  975 

Dev  Erniand,  Matter  of  (24  Hun,  1)  333 

Devo,  In  re  (30  Hun,  512)  11  aO 

'  In  re  (102  N.  Y.  724)  1130 

Dial  V.  Garv  (14  S.  C.  573)  3.58,  360,  308 

Diament  v.  lore  (31  N.  J.  L.  220)  1102,  1244 
Diamo)  d  v.  Shell  (15  Ark.  26)  384,  410 

Dice  ».  Lvin  (110  Ind.  561)  610 

Dickens  r.  Bush  (23  Ala.  840)  336 

V.  Miller  (12  Mo.  App.  408)  444 

Dickenson  v.  Stewart  (1  Mur.  99)  499 

Dickerson's  Appeal  (55  Conn.  223)  886.  1193 
Dickeschied  r.  Bank  (28  W.  Va.  .340)  117, 120 
Dickev  v.  Malechi  (6  Mo.  177)      74,  483,  484 

V.' Vann  (81  Ala.  425)  3.37,  493,  502 

Dickie  v.  Carter  (42  111.  376)  70 

V.  Dickie  (80  Ala.. 57)        789,  1140,  11-53 
Dickinson's  Appeal  (42  Conn.  491)  157 

Appeal  (54  Conn.  224)  4-34 

Dickinson  r.  Calahan  (19  Pa.  St.  227)        688 

V.  Dickinson  (23  Conn.  601)  291 


Page 

Dickinson  v.  Dickinson  (61  Pa.  St.  401)  28,  72 

r.  Dutcher  (Bravt.  104)  685 

r.  Haves  (31  Conn.  417)       326,  329,  1254 

V.  McGraw  (4  Rand.  158)  359 

V.  Purvis  (8  S.  &  R.  71 )  936 

Dickman  v.  Birkhanser  (10  Neb.  686)         204 

Dickson,  Ex  parte  (1  Shn.  N.s.  37)  958 

V.  Montgomery  (1  8wan,  348)  930 

V.  United  S'afes  (125  Mass.  311)  913 

V.  Wilkinson  (3  How.  U.  S.  57)  792 

Diefenderier  v.  Eshlemau  (113  Pa.   St. 

305)  263 

Diehl's  Appeal  (33  Pa.  St.  406)  1043 

Diehl  V.  Miller  (56  Iowa,  313)  12.08 

Dietrick  v.  Dietrick  (0  Serg.  &  R.  207)         45 

Diez,  In  res  (.50  N.  Y.88)  57 

Digby  V.  Howard  (8  Bligh,  n.  s.  224)        613 

z'.  Howard  (4  Sim.  488)  613 

Dilbone  v.  Moorer  (14  Ala.  420)  805 

D.ldine  v.  Dildine  (32  N.  J.  Ec].  78)     935,  038 

Dillabaiigirs  Es-tate  (4  Watts,  177)  G.ll 

Dillard  r.  Dillard  (77  Va.  820)  1151 

r.  Dillard  (78  Va.2(.8)  499 

V.  Harris  (2  Tenn.  Ch.  196)  370 

Dille  V.  Webb  (61  Ind.  85)  1223 

Dilley  v.  Love  (61  Md.  603)  1218,  1219, 1223, 

1224 
Dillinger  v.  Kellev  (84  Mo.  561)  1085 

Dillingham  r.  Weston  (21  Me.  263)  855 

Dillman  v.  Barber  (114  Ind.  40^)  1130 

Dillon  V.  Parker  (1  Swanst.  359)  1016 

Dilwor  h  v.  MavHeld  (.'iO  Miss.  40)  290 

V.  Rice  (48'Mo.  124)  724 

Dimes  v.  Grand  Junction  Canal  (3  H.  L. 

Cas.  759)  1085 

Dingman  v.  Dingman  (39  Oh.  St.  172)        241 

Dirmever  v.  0"Hern  (39  La.  An.  901)         1206 

Ditch  V.  Sennott  (117  111.  ;:J02)  1016 

Ditmar  v.  Bogle  (53  Ala.  100)  704 

Dit.'iche's  Estate  (13  Phi  la.  288)  345 

Diversev  v.  Johnson  (93  (II.  547)  12.')5 

V.  S'mith  (103  111.  378)  626 

Dix  V.  iMorris  (06  Mo.  514)  1142 

Dixon's  Appeal  (55  Pa.  St.  424)  93 

Dixon  r.  Buell  (21  HI.  203)  815 

V.  Cassell  (5  Oh.  533)  429 

V.  D'Armond  (23  La.  An.  200)  402 

«.  Dixon  (4  La.  188)  1239 

?;.  Dixon  (18  Oh.  R.  113)  640,  (;42 

V.  Mason  (68  Ga.  478)  330 

V.  McCue  (14  Grat.  540)  267 

V.  Ramsay  (3  Cr.  319)  358,  374,  410 

V.  Storm  (5  Redf.  419)  12-36 

Doak's  Estate  (46  Cal.  573)  399 

Doane  v.  Doane  (46  Vt.  485)  201 

V.  Hadlock  (42  Me.  72)  92,  93 

Dobard  v.  Bavhi  (30  La.  An.  134)  1057 

Dobbins  v.  Half  acre  (52  Mi.ss.  561)  ]2.{1 

Dobbs  V.  Cockerham  (2  Port.  328)  1158 

?;.  Prothro  (55  Ga.  73)  829,991 

Dobson,  Goods  of  (L.  R.  1  P.  &  D.  88)        55 

».  Butler  (17  Mo.  87)  182,184,520 

Dobvns  V.  McGovern  (15  Mo.  662)  559 

Dockerv  v.  McDowell  (40  Ala.  476)  699, 1170 

Dockray  v.  Milliken  (76  Me.  517)  265 

Dockuni  V.  Robinson  (26  N.  H.  372)  84 

Dodd  V.  Winship  (144  Mass.  461)  1154 

Dodds  r.  Dodds  (26  Iowa,  311)  2f,3 

V.  Walker  (9  111.  App.  37)  12e;8 

Dodge's  Appeal  (106  Pa.  St.  216)  9C2 

Dodge  V.  Avcrigg  (12  N.  J.  Eq.  82)  249 


TABLE   OF    CASKS. 


lix 


208 
7:21; 


Dodge  V.  Dod-c  (-31  I5arb.  413) 

V.  Maiiinii!,'  (1  N.  V.  298) 

V.  I'oiid  (L';i  N,  Y.  (;.)) 

V.  Williiiiiis  (4(i  Wis.  70) 
Dodj^son,  Goods  of  ( 1  Sw   &  Tr.  25'.)) 
Dodsoii  V.  Hall  (00  Pa.  St.  402) 

V.  Nevitt  (5  .>Ioiit.  518) 

V.  iSiiniJson  (2  lland.  2i4) 
Doe  r.  .AiiiliTsoii  (5  I  nil.  ■>•!) 

V.  Harford  (4  .M.  &  .Scl.  10) 

r.  Bernard  (7  Sni.  &  M.  310) 

V.  Cassidv  (0  hid.  (i'.i) 

V.  OlaHve"(2  II.  Black.  399) 

V.  Gallini  (5  B.  &  Ad.  021) 

V.  GwiUim  (5  B.  &  Ad.  122) 

V.  Ilardv  (52  Ala.  201) 

V.  HikMnaii  (2  III.  :32;!) 

V.  Kohertsoii  (11  Wheat.  332) 

V.  lioe  (JO  Ga.  001) 

V.  Sheffield  (13  Kast,  520) 

V.  Sturc:is  (7  Taunt.  217) 
Doebler's  Appeal  (04  Pa.  St.  9) 
Doerge  v.  Ileimenz  (I  Mo.App.  238)  8ii5.  841, 

842,  1051 
Do^an  V.  Bro^-n  (44  Miss  235) 
Doi?i,^ett  V.  Dill  (108  111.500) 
Dohertv  v.  Clioate  (10  Lea,  192) 
Dohs  V.  Dohs  (i;0  Gal.  2.')5) 
Dolan,  In  re  (88  X.  Y.  300) 


4117 
008 
757 
003 
1030,  10  ;8 
105 
257 

lOOd 
155 
877 
871 
338 

1048 

22 

32,^ 

943 

991 

L  955 


394 

900 


1140 


1128 

287 

1042 

841,  1257 

1047,  1048 

Dole  V.  Irish  (2  Barb   639)  443 

V.  Lincoln  (31  Me.  422)    117,118,120,  122 

Dollield  V.  Kroh  (quoted  GO  Md.  495)         1172 

Domestic,  &c.  Soc.  v.  Reynolds  (9  Md. 

341)  893 

Donald  v.  M.Whorter  (41  Miss.  124)  761 

Donaldson,  Gooils  of  (2  Curt.  386)  85 

V.  Lewis  (7  Mo.  App.  403)    309,  444,  .571, 

581,  1198 

V.  Raboric  (26  Md.  312) 

Donesan  r.  Wade  (70  Al  •.  501) 

Donuell  V.  Braden  (70  Imva,  551) 

Donnelly's  Estate  (3  Phila   18) 

Wiil  ((>8  Iowa,  120)  48,  470,  1208 

Donnellv  r   Di.nnellv  (8  B.  Mon.  113)        223 
Doiinington  v.  Mitchell  (2  N.  J.Eq.  243)  510,  : 

642 

Dnnohoo  V.  Lea  (1  Swan,  119)  103  i 

Donovan's  .Appeal  (41  Conn.  551)  340 

Doo  V.  Brabant  (4  T.  R.  706)  937 

Doogan  v.  Elliott  (43  Iowa.  342)  866 

Doo'lan  v.  MeCurley  (66  Cal.  476)  714 

Doolittle  V.  HoIton'(28  Vt.  819)  330,  1089 

V.  Lewis  (7  John.  Gh.  45)      359,  364,  375 

Dorah  v.  Dorah  (4  Oh.  St.  292)  177 

Doran  v.  Mullen  (78  III.  342)  469,  472 

Dorenius.  In  re  (33  N.  J.  Eq.234)  1138 

Dornian.  In  re  (5  Dein.  112)  34 

r.  Lane  1 6  111.  143)  1025 

Dornick  v  Reichenback  (10  S.  &  R.  84)        42 

Dorr  V.  Commonwealth  (1  Mass.  293)       1252 

V.  Waniwriyht  (13  Pick.  328)        383,  391 

Dorries's  Succession  (37  La.  An.  833)         489 

Dor.sett  V.  Frith  (25  Ga.  537)  424 

Dorsey  v.  Dorsev  (5  J.  J.  Marsh.  280)        358 

V.  Sheppard  (12  Gill  &  .1.  192)       83,  489 

r.  Smithson  (6  II.  &  J.  61)    417,  420,  632 

V.  Warfield  (7  Md.  65)  70,  1194 

Dorsheimer  v.  Rorback  (23  N.  J.  Eq.  46)  1231, 

1240 
Dortch  V.  Dortch  (71  N.  C.  224)  652 

Dossey  v.  Pitman  (81  Ala.  381)    197,  201,  215 


P;i-e 

Douce,  Goods  of  (2  Sw.  &  Tr.  593)  63 

DouKlieriy  r.  Barms  (04  .Mo.  150)       208,  270 

I-.  l)ouj;lierly  (4  .Met.  Kv.  25)  .55 

V.  Stephenson  (20  Pa    S"t.  210)  083 

r.  Van  Nostrand  (1  lloll.  Ch.  (i8)  2)2 

Doufjhty  V.  Stillwell  (1  Bradf.  300)  883 

Doiif,Hass  V.  Bovlston  (09  (Ja.  180)  210 

r.  Douj;lass  (11  Kicli.  417)  2;8 

V.  Forrest  (4  IMwj;.  080)  510 

V.  Frazer  (2  McGord  Ch.  105)  796 

V.  Low  (3(i  Hun,  497)  3)3 

V.  McDill  (1  SjuMrs,  139)  262 

V.  Saterlee  (11  John.  16)  733,  73;t 

Douthitt  V.  Douthitt  (1  Ala.  594)  11-58 

Dow  )•.  Dow  (30  Me.  211)  229,  872,  880 

Dowdale's  Case  (0  Co.  47)  049 

Dowdv  V.  Graham  (42  Miss.  451)        578,  6'«3 

Doweil  V.  Tucker  (40  Ark.  438)  470 

Dower  v.  Seeds  (28  W.  Va.  113)      90,  92,  95, 

470,  498 

Dowlcy  V.  Winfield  (14  Sim.  277)  1015 

Dowlint,'  V.  Feeley  (72  Ga.  557)  705,  1013 

Downer  v.  Downer  (9  Watts,  60)  344 

».  Smith  (24  Cal.  114)  443 

Downey  v.  .Muri)hy  (1  Dev.  &  B.  L.  82)       52 

Downie  v.  Knowles  (37  N.  J   Eq.  513)      1136 

Downini,'  r.  Bain  (24  Ga.  372)  883 

V.  Marshall  (23  N.  Y.  360)  924,  925 

Dowuman  r.  Rust  (0  lijind.  587)  1095 

Dowtv  V.  Hall  (83  Ala.  165)  507 

Dovai  )'.  Doval  (31  Ga.  193)  274 

Dovle's  Estate  (08  Cal.  132)  1199 

F:state  (Mvr.  68)  575 

Doyle  V.  Blake  (2  Sch.  &  Lef  231)  510 

Drake's  Appeal  (45  Conn.  9)  50 

Drake  v.  Curtis  (88  Mo.  644)  494 

V.  Green  (10  Allen,  124)  578 

V.  Heiken  (61  Cal.  340)  119 

V.  Kinsell  (.38  Mich.  232)  206,  1077 

V.  Merrill  (2  .Jones,  .368)  492,  494 

V.  Pell  (3  Edw.  Ch.  251)  906 

Drane  c.  Bayliss  (1  Humph.  174)       411,  545 

Draper  iJ.  Karnes  (12  R.  I.  150)  715 

V.  Jackson  (16  Mass.  480)  612 

Drayton's  Will  (4  McCord,  46)    512,  513,  743 

Drayton  v.  Dravton  (1  Des.  557)  701 

'v.  Grinike  (Rich.  Eq.  Ciir^.  321)    953,  MOO 

Drenkle  v.  Sharman  (9  Watts,  485)  748 

Dresel  V  Jordan  (104  .Mass.  407)  1055 

Dres.ser  v.  Dresser  (46  Me.  48)  116,  118 

Drew's  Appe  il  (58  N.  H.  319)  .529 

Drew  V.  Gordon  (13  Allen,  120)  164, 178,  187, 

664 

t'.  McDaniel  (60  K.  H.  480)  S.'.O 

V.  Wakefield  (54  Me  291)      3.5.5,904.  946 

Drewry  v.  Thacker  (3  Swanst.  529)  799 

Drexef  1-.  Berney  (1  Dem.  163)  563 

Drink  water  v.  D'rinkwater  (4  Mass.  354)  631, 

1038 
Driskell  v.  Hanks  (18  B.  Mon.  855)  256 

Driver  v   Riddle  (8  Port.  343)  582,  583 

Drowry  v.  Bauer  (08  Mo.  155)  180 

I)ruck(?r  r.  Ro.senstein  (19  Fla.  191)  199 

Druid  Park  v.  Ottinger  (53  Md.  46)  717 

Dnimgoole  v.  Smith  (78  Va.  065)  700 

Drumheeler  v.  Haff  (23  Mo.  App.  161)     1100 
Drummond  v.  Drummond  (26  N.  J.  Eq. 
234)  950 

V.  Parish  (3  Curt.  522)  85 

Drnrv  v.  Natick  (10  Allen.  169)  409 

Duane,  Goods  of  (2  Sw.  &  Tr.  590)  485 


Ix 


TABLE   OF   CASES. 


Page 
Dublin  V.  Chadbourn  (16  Mass.  433)  384,  493, 

502 
Du  Bois  V.  Brown  (1  Dem.  317)  351,  12()-2 
Dubois  V.  McLean  (4  McLean,  486)  1025,  1038 
Du  Bois  V.  Kay  (35  N.  Y.  ](i2)  880 

Dubs  V.  Dubs  (31  Pa.  St.  149)  277 

Dubuch  V.  Wildermuth  (3  La.  An.  407)    1031 
Duckwortb  v.  Duckworth  (35  Ala.  70)      1133 
V.  Vaughan  (27  La.  An.  599)  329 

Duclolange's  Succession  (1  La.  An.  181)   437 


Dudley  v.  Bosworth  (1  Hun,  9) 
«."  Davenport  (85  Mo.  462) 
V.  Foote  (G3  N.  H.  57) 
V.  Mallerv  (4  Ga.  52) 
V.  Mavhe"w  (3  N.  Y.  9) 

Duffield  v'.  Morris  (2  Harr.  375) 

Duffy  V.  Ins.  Co.  (8  W.  &  S.  413) 
Dufour  V.  Dufour  (28  Ind.  421) 

V.  Pereira  (1  Dick.  419) 

Dugan's  Estate  (Tuck.  338) 

Dugan  r.  Gittings  (8  Gill,  138) 

V.  Hollins  (4  Md.  Cb.  139) 

V.  Hollins  (llMd.41) 

V.  Massev  (6  Bush,  82) 

Dugger  V.  Oglesbv  (99  111.  405) 

1-.  Tayloe  (60"Ala.  504) 
Duhme  v.  Young  (3  Bush,  3431 
Duhring  V.  Duhring  (20  Mo.  174) 
Duke  V.  Brandt  (51  Mo.  221) 
V.  Duke  (26  Ala.  673) 
V.  Duke  (81  Kv.  .308) 
V.  Fuller  (9  N.'H.  536) 
V.  Reed  (64  Tex.  705) 
Dull  V.  Drake  (68  Tex.  2051 ' 
Dullard  V.  Hardy  (47  Mo.  403) 
Dulles  V.  Reed  (6  Yerg.  53) 


1217, 1218 

265 

603 

61 

634 

34,  39,  40, 

41,  479 

610,  642 

1185,  1255 

57 

1144 

1214,  1218 

978 

692,  1110 

246 

820 

431.  433 

577 

289 

236,  263 

1124 

607,  608 

933 

204 

407 

863,  1155 

1123 


Dulwitch  College  r.  Johnson  (2  Vern.  49)  798 
Duniev  v.  Sasse  (24  Mo.  177) 

f.~  Schoeffler  (24  Mo.  170) 
Dummerstou  v.  Newfane  (37  Vt.  9) 
Dunbar  r.  Dunbar  (13  Atl.  R.  578) 

V.  Williams  (10  John.  249) 
Duncan,  In  re  (3  Redf.  153) 

V.  Armaut  (3  La.  An.  84) 

V.  Davison  (40  N.  J.  Eq.  535) 

V.  Dent  (5  Rich.  Eq.  7) 

V.  Duncan  (23  111.  .364) 

V.  Eaton  (17  N.  H.  441)        165.  169 


963 

963 

235,  254 

122 

823 

402 

1064 

738 

1138 

469 

180 


..  Franklm  Township  (43  N.  J    Kq. 

14:3)  985,  986 

V.  Gainey  (108  Lid.  579)  1069,  1071,  1096 

V.  Laffertv  (6  J.  J   Marsh.  46) 

V.  Mizner  (4  J.  J.  Marsh.  443) 

V  Philips  (3  Head,  415) 

V.  Stewart  (25  Ala.  408) 

V.  Terre  Haute  (85  Lid.  104) 

V.  Tobin  (Ci.eves  Eq.  143) 

V.  Veal  (49  Tex.  603) 

V.  Wallace  (114  Lid.  169) 

V.  Watson  (28  Miss.  187) 

V.  Watts  (16  Beav.  204) 
Duncommun's  Appeal  (17  Pa.  St.  268)     1180 
Duudas's  Appeal  (73  Pa.  St.  474)       340,  344, 

12.35 
Dundas  v.  Hitchcock  (12  How.  256)  249,  275 
Dunham's  Appeal  (27  Conn.  192)  41,  477 

Dunham  v.  Averill  (45  Conn.  61)  979 

V.  Dunham  (10  Grav.  577)  588, 1202, 1204 

V.  Elford  (13  Rich."  Eq.  190)  993 


145 

1227 

962 

448 

239 

1187 

1043 

1097,  1098 

751 

986 


Page 

Dunham  v.  Hatcber  (31  Ala.  483)  1207 

V.  Osborn  (1  Pai.  634)  232 

V.  Roberts  (27  Ala.  701)  571 

Dunkel,  Li  re  (5  Dem.  188) 

Dunlap's  Appeal  (116  Pa.  St.  500)  905 

Dunlap  V.  Dunlap  (4  Des.  305)  935,  1104 

r.  Hendlev  (92N.  C.  115)  844 

?;.  Mitchell  (10  Oh.  117)  703 

V.  Robinson  (28  Ala.  100)  36 

V.  Robinson  (12  Oh.  St.  530)     1056,  1066 

V.  Thomas  (69  Iowa.  358)         249,  253,  275 

Dunn,  Ex  parte  (63  N.  C.  137)  178 

In  re  (5  Dem.  124)  795,  844 

Dunn's  Estate  (Mvr.  122)  340,  344 

Estate  (13  Phila.  395)  720 

Dunn  V.  Amev  (1  Leigh,  465)  1093 

V.  Deerv"'(40  Iowa,  251)  8.;2 

Dunne's  Estate  (65  Cal.  .378)  997,  1242 

Dunne  v.  Dunne  (66  Cal.  157)  1099 

Dunnigan  v.  Stevens  (122  III.  396)      817,  818 

Dunning  v.  Driver  (25  Ind.  269)  1038 

V.  Ocean  Bank  (6  Lans.  296)  510 

V.  Ocean  Bank  (61  N.  Y.  497)       393,  596 

Dunscombv.  Dunscoinb(l  John.  Ch.  508)  1137 

Dunseth  v.  Bank  of  United  States  (6  Oh 


76) 


Dunson  v.  Payne  (4-*  Tex.  5-39) 
Dunton  v-  Robins  (2  Munf.  341) 
Dupey  V.  Greflin  (1  Mart.  N.  s    198) 
Duplex  V.  De  Roren  (2  Vern.  540) 
Dupree  v.  Adkins  (43  Gn.  475) 
Dupiiv's  Succession  (4  La.  An.  570) 
DupuV  r.  Wurz  (53  N.  Y.  556) 
I  Durai'ido  v.  Durando  (23  N.  Y.  .331) 
Duraut  v.  Ashmore  (2  Rich.  184) 
1  Durfee,  Petitioner  (14  R.  I.  47) 
Durfee  ?;.  Durfee  (8  Met.  Mass.  490) 
Durham's  Estate  (49  Cal.  490) 
Durham  v.  Angier  (20  Me.  242) 

V.  Rhodes  (23  Md.  233) 

V.  Williams  (32  La.  An.  968) 
Durie  «.  Blauvelt  (49  N.  J.  L.  114) 
Durnford's  Succession  (1  La.  An.  92) 
Duryea  v.  Durvea  (85  111.  41) 

V.  Grangef  (33  N.  W.  730) 
Dustan  v.  Carter  (3  Dem.  149) 
Dutcii's  Appeal  (57  Pa.  St.  461) 
Dutch  Church  v.  Ackerman  (1  N 

40) 
Dutcher  r.  Culver  (23  Minn.  415) 

V.  Wright  (94  n.  S   553) 
Duttou  V.  Stuart  (41  Ark.  101) 
Duty's  Estate  (27  Mo.  43) 
Duval  V.  Bank  (10  Ala.  636) 
Duvall  V.  Snowden  (7  G.  &  J.  430) 


261 

1131 

1201 

1122 
776 

1('71 
537 
495 
232 
481,  482 
2(18 
484 

1063 

229,  274 

268,  1109 

1129 
363 
805 
107 
834 

1006 

1213 
J.  Eq. 

1007 

1206 
807 
248 
469 

1061 
434,  435 
702 
828 
734 
847 
.578 


Dwight  V.  Blackmar  (2  Mich.  -330) 

V.  Carson  (2  La.  An.  459) 

V.  Newell  (15  III.  3.33) 

V.  Overton  (35  Tex.  390) 

V.  Simon  (4  La.  An.  490) 

Dwinel  V.  Stone  (-30  Me.  384)  284,  285 

Dwver  r.  Garlough  (31  Oh.  St.  158)  242 

\\  Kalteyer  (68  Tex.  554)     407,  689.  749, 

1169 

Dve  V.  Young  (55  Iowa,  433)  48,  490 

Dver  V.  Braiinock  (66  Mo.  391)  158 

■    V   Clark  (5  Met.  Mass.  562)   234,289,290 

V.  Drew  (14  La.  An.  6.57)  287 

r  Stanwood  (7  N.  H.  201)  856 

Dykes  v.  Woodhouse  (3  Rand.  287)  752 


TATiT.E   OF   CASES. 


Ixi 


PaRO 
Eads  V.  Mason  (K,  Til.  App   545)  (i-U 

Kafjern  Kajrcr  (8  111.  App.  ;!5(i)  ll'M 

Kagle  V.  Eiiiinct  (4  l{nuU.  117)  444 

KaKJeton  V.   Homer  (L.  K.  37  Cli.  Div. 

695)  »"8.  900 

Ealer  r.  Lodffo  (36  La.  An.  115)  12ii(i 

Eiinics  i\  Bratllel)oro  (54  Vt.  471)  ti22 

Kan  r.  SnydiT  (46  Barb.  2:10)  :i7 

Eans  V    Kans  (79  Mo.  53)  189,  (181 

Earl  V.  Grim  (1  John.  Ch.  404)  llii2 

Earle  (■,  Earlo  (93  N    Y.  104)       678,  7-21,  7--18 
Early  c.  Early  (5  Kedf.  376)  482 

Earnest  v  Earnest  (5  Kawk-,  213)    150,  1215, 

1216 
Earp's  Apppal  (28  Pa.  St.  368)  638,  10ii4 

East  r.  Wood  (62  Ala.  313)  1080 

Eastcrlv  )'.  Kenev  (30  Conn.  18)  956 

East  India  Co.  v"  Skinner  (Comb.  342)       763 
Easton  r.  Court wright  (84  Mo.  27)     298,  300, 

301 
East  Tennessee  Co.  v.  Gaskell  (2  Lon, 

742)  75r,  795 

Eatman  r.  Eatman  (82  Ala.  223)  846 

V.  Eatman  (83  Ala.  478)  153,  195 

Eaton  v.  Benton  (2  Hill,  576)  975 

f.  Colo  (10  Me.  137)  685 

t'.  Robbins  (29  Minn.  327)  212 

r.  Straw  (18  X.  H.  321))  951) 

V.  Walsh  (42  Mo.  272)  051,  653 

V.  Watts  (L.  R.  4  Eq.  Cas.  151)  876 

Eaves  )i   Harbin  (12  Bush,  445)  8-!5 

Ebelmesser  r.  Ebelmesser  (99  111.  541)     1087, 

1088 
Ebei-le  v.  Fisher  (13  Pa.  St.  526)  240 

Eberstein  v.  Camp  (37  Mich.  176)      992,  993, 

1113 

Eberfs  v.  Eberts  (42  Mich.  404)  895,  939 

Ebv's  Appeal  (.50  Pa.  St.  311)  902 

"  Appeal  (84  Pa.  St.  241)  902 

Echols  i:  Barrett  (6  Oa.  443)        384,  410,  545 

Eckert  v.  Mvers  (15  N.  East.  862)       558,  5.59 

Eddev's  Appeal  ( 10.)  Pa.  St.  406)  32 

Eddins  V.  Buck  (23  Ark.  507)  611 

V.  Graddv  (28  Ark.  .500)  775,  805 

Eddv's  Case  (32  N.  J.  Eq.  701)  44,  47 

"Estate  (12  Phila.  17)  187 

Estate  (13  Phila.  262)  1151 

Eddv  V.  Adams  ( 145  Mass.  489)  842,  845 

V.  Mouiton  (13  R.  I.  105)  260 

Edelen  v.  Dent  (2  G.  iSs  J.  185)  975 

v.  Edelen  (10  Md.  52)  571 

V.  Edclcn  (11  Md.  415)     1144,  1149,  1154 

V.  Hardev  (7  Harr.  &  J.  61)  68 

Eden  v.  Smvth  (5  Ves.  341)  97(i 

V.  Railroad  (14  B.  Men.  204)  620 

Edgar  v.  Cook  (4  Ala.  588)  283 

Edmonds  v.  Crenshaw  (1  Harp.  Ch.  224)  737, 

1164 

V.  Crenshaw  (1  ^McCord  Ch.  252)  701 

V.  Crenshaw  (14  Put.  166)  737 

Edmondson's  Estate  (L   R.  5  Eq.  389)        881 

V.  Carroll  (2  Sneed,  678)  4(i9 

V.  Phillips  (73  Mo.  57)  859 

Edmunds  v.  Rockwell  (125  Mass.  363)      102<i 

r.  Scott  (78  Va.  720)  987.1179 

Edmundson  v.  Roberts  (1  How.  Miss.  322)  581 

r   Roberts  (2  How.  Miss.  822)  660 

Edney  i'   Brvson  (2  .Tones  E.  3t')5)  9'.tl 

Edwards's  Appeal  (47  Pa.  St.  144)  112 

Estate  (12  Phila.  85)  504,  578 

Succession  (34  La.  An.  210)  1170 


Pajjfi 
Edwards  v.  W\hh  (43  Ala.  666)  903 

I'.  Bibb  (54  Ala.  475)  232 

V.  Bruce  (8  Md.  387)  582 

V.  Cobb  (95  N.  C.  4)  324.  575 

V.  Crenshaw  (Harp.  Eq.  224)  1148 

V.  Edwards  (2  C.  &  M.  612)  763 

V.  Ela  (5  Allen,  87)  1150 

V.  Freeman  (2  P.  Wms.  435)      130,  1213, 

1219 
r.  Gibbs  (11  Ala.  292)  8-55 

V.  llarben  (2  T.  R.  587)  415 

V.  Kearsev  (74  N.  C.  241)  201 

r.  Kear7.ev(90  U.  S.  595)  1076 

r.  Love  (94  N.  C.  365)  758 

V.  MctJee  (27  Miss.  92)  185 

V.  Mounts  (61  Tex.  398)  344 

V.  Pike  (1  Ed.  267)  910 

r.  Pag.iet  (19  T.-x.  164)  1046 

V.  Smith  (35  Miss.  197)  61 

1).  Sullivan  (20  Iowa,  .502)  251 

r.  Thomas  (66  Mo.  4(i8)  281 

V.  Warren  (90  N.  C.  604)  890 

Eells  V.  Holder  (2  McCrarv,  622)       358,  362, 

308,  442 

V.  Lvnch  (8  Bosw.  465)  888 

EffingerV.  Hall  (81  Va  94)  877 

V.  Richards  (35  Miss.  540)  1173 

Efland  V.  Eriaiid  (96  N.  C.  488)  236,  2  !0 

Eirberts  r.  Wood  (3  Pai.  517)  286 

Ege  I'.  Kille  (84  Pa   St.  333)  603 

V.  Medlar  (82  Pa.  St.  86)*  276 

Egerton  v.  Egerton  (17  N.  J.  Eq.  419)  121,  81 1 

Egjrleston  v.  Egtrleston  (72  111.  24)  203 

Ehleii  V.  Ehlen  (64  Md.  360)  523,  532 

Eichclberger  v.  Hawthorne  (33  Md.  588)    348 

V.  Morris  (6  W^tts,  42)  652 

Eisenbise  v.  Eisenbise  (4  Watts,  134)  674 

Eisenlord  v.  Eisenlord  (17  N.   Y.  State 

Rep.  449)  834 

Ela  V.  Edwards  (13  Allen,  48)  •  361 

V.  Edwards  (16  Grav.  91)  65,  71 

V.  Edwards  (97  Mass.  318)  835 

Elbert  v  O'Neil  (102  Pa.  302)  269 

Elder  v.  Lantz  (49  Md.  186)  883 

V.  Littler  (15  Iowa,  65)  414,  421,  423 

Eldredge  v.  Bell  (64  Iowa,  125)  1063 

Eldridge  v.  Pierce  (90  111.  474)  206,  207 

Elector  of  Hesse,  Goods  of  (1  Hagg.  93)     407 

Elfe  V.  Cole  (20  Ga.  197)  175,  707 

Eliason  r.  Eliason  (3  Del.  Ch.  200)  2.59 

Eliot  V.  Carter  (12  Pick.  430)  878 

V.  EliotdO  Allen,  357)  1194 

Eliott  V.  Sparrell  (114  Mass.  404)  1137 

Ellett  V.  Reid  (25  W.  Va.  550)        1022,  1057, 

1063 

Ellicott  V.  Chamberlain  (38  N..T.  Eq.  604)  533 

Ellinger  v.  Crowl  (17  Md.  361)  609 

Elliott's  Succession  (31  La.  An.  31)  770 

Will  (2.1.  J.  Marsh.  340)  42 

Elliott  r.  Branch  l?ank  (20  Ala.  345)  695 

V.  Carter  (9  Grat.  541)      1094,  1104,  1108 

V.  Dravton  (3  Des.  2!t)  1123 

V.  Elliott  (9  M.  .S:  W.  23)  990,  992 

V.  (J.'orge  (23  Grat.  780)  104O,  1042 

V.  (Jurr  (2  Phill.  16)  516,  518 

V.  Kemp  (7  M.  &  W.  306)  389 

r.  Lewis  (3  Edw.  Ch.  40)  1246 

r.  Mackorell  (19  S.  C.  238)  196 

V.  Topp  (63  Miss.  138)  871.  884 

I'.  Welbv  (13  .Mo.  App.  19)       31,  37,  476 

V.  Wilson  (27  Mo.  App.  218)  1213 


Ixii 


TABLE   OF   CASES. 


Pajre 

Ellis  V.  Ellis  (133  Mass.  469)  479 

V.  Oosnev  (7  J.  J.  Marsii.  109)  12fJ5 

V.  Kvfj;ar  (90  Mo.  600)  2:i2 

V.  McBriile  (27  Miss.  Ibb)  540 

V.  Mc(iee(G3  Miss.  1G8)  414 

V.  Secor  (31  Mich.  185)  116,  119,  123,  12.5 

V.  Smith  (.38  Me.  114)  827 

V.  Wittv  (63  Miss.  117)  555,  556 

Ellison  V.  Allen  (8  Kla.  206)  807 

V.  Andrews  (12  Ived.  188)  752 

Ellmaker's  Estate  (4  Watts,  34)         401,  507, 

53.3,  535,  7.")2 

Ellsworth  ?'.  Thayer  (4  Pick.  122)  854 

Elniendorf  r.  Lnnsing  (4  John.  Ch.  502)     740 

V.  Lockwood  (57  N.  Y.  322)  275 

Elmev  V.  Kechele  (1  Redf.  472)  526 

Elmsley  r.  Younp  (2  Mvl.  &  K.  780)  905 

Elrod  V.  Alexander  (4  lleisk.  342)  620 

V.  Lancaster  (2  Head,  571)  1128 

Eltzroth  V   Binford  (71  Ind.  455)  '  270 

Ehvell  t\  Universalist  Church  (63  Tex. 

220)  580 

ELves  V.  Maw  (3  East,  38)  605 

Ely  r.  Dix  (118  111.  477)  724 

■   r.  Ely  (20  N.  J.  Eq.  43)  881 

V.  Horine  (5  Dana,  .398)  286,  702 

Emanuel  v.  Norcuin  (7  How.  Miss.  150)     767 

Enibrv  V.  Millar  (1  A.  K.  Marsh.  300)        443 

Enieric  v.  Penniman  (26  Cal.  119)  622 

Emerson  v.  Amell  (Freem.  22)  617 

V.  Boville  (1  Pliilliin.  .324)  107 

V.  Bowers  (14  N.  Y.  449)       508,  526.  576 

V.  Ross  (17  Fla.  122)  1078 

V.  Thompson  (16  Mass.  429)        736,  841, 

843 

Emerv  r.  Batchelder  (78  Me.  233)       984,  988 

V.  Berrv  (28  N.  H.  473)        414,  415.  426 

V.  Clouffh  (63  N.  H.  552)     118,  121.  122, 

12.5.  ]26.  127 

V  Hildreth-(2  Gray,  228)  440,  568 

V.  Union  Society  (79  Me.  3.S4)  103 

Emmett  v.  Emmett  (14  Lea,  369)         201,  226 

Empson  v    Soden  (4  B.  &  Ad.  6.55)  598 

Emson  v.  Ivins  (42  N   .J   Eq   277)  840 

Engelhardt  v.  Yung  (76  Ala.  534)      198,  199, 

217 
England  v.  Vestry  (53  Md.  466)  968,  969 

Engles  r   Brnington  (4  Yeates,  345)  475 

English  V.  English  (3  N   J.  Eq.  504)  269,  271 
~  V.  McNaif  (34  Ala,  40)  507 

V.  Newell  (42  N  J.  Eq.  76)  738 

Enicks  V.  I'owell  (2  Strobh.  Eq,  196)    391,  550 
Enloe  V.  Sherrill  (6  Ired.  212)  464 

Ennis  v.  Pentz  (3  Bradf.  382)  904 

Ensign's  Estate  (10.3  N.  Y.  284)  1240 

Ensworth  r   Curd  (68  Mo.  282)  300 

Epes  V.  Dudley  (5  Rand.  437)  643 

Epling  I'.  Hutton  (121  III.  555)  31 

Epperson  v.  Hostetter  (95  Ind.  .583)  842 

Epping  V.  Robinson  (21  Fla.  36)         -326,  329, 

368,  452 
Eppinger  v.  Canepa  (20  Fla.  262)       712,  799, 
11.37,  1142,  1146,  1164 
Eprcson  v-  Wheat  (53  Cal.  715)  212 

Equitable  Co.  v.  Christ  (2  Flip.  599)  602 

Equitable  Life  Soc.  v.  Vogel   (76   Ala 

441)  360.  364,  .367 

Erickson  r.  ^Villard  (1  N.  H.  217)  876 

Erie  Sayings  Co.  v.  Vincent  (105  Pa.  St. 

.31.5)  346,  722 

Erlacher,  Matter  of  (3  Redf.  8)  764 


Pn^e 
Erskine  v.  Henrv  (6  Leigh,  378)  1201 

V.  Wiiitehead  (84  Ind.  3.57)  928,  931 

Erving  v.  Peters  (3  Durnf.  &  E.  T.  R. 

685)  792 

Erwin  v.  Carroll  (1  Yerg.  145)  795 

r.  Henry  (5  Mo.  469)  355 

V.  Humner  (27  Ala.  296)  80 

r;.  Loper  (43  N.  Y.  ,521)  II 12 

«  Lowry  (1  La.  An.  276)  323,  324 

V.  Turner  (6  Ark.  14)  846 

Escarraguell's   Succession   (.36    La.   An. 

1.56)  1072 

Eshleman's  Appeal  (74  Pa.  St.  42)  1163 

Eskridge  v.  Farrar  (34  La.  An   709)        1099, 

1102 
Eslava  v.  Lepretre  (21  Ala.  504)  251 

Espy  r.  Comer  (76  Ala.  501)        281,  289,  2li0 
Essex's  Case  (cited  in  1  Show.  69)  65 

Estate  of .     F'or  cases  under  •'  Estate 

of,"  see  names  of  parties. 
Estep  ?•.  Morris  (38  Md   418)  76 

Esterly's  Appeal  (109  Pa.  St.  222)     444,  1216 
Estes  V.  Howland  (15  R.  I.  127)  6,j2 

Estill  V.  McClintick  (11  W.  Va.  399)         699, 

1158 

V.  Rogers  (1  Bush,  62)  223 

Estv  V.  Clark  (101  Mass.  36)  904.  939 

Etchison  v.  Etchison  (53  Md   348)  68.  70 

Ethell  V.  Kichols  (I  Idaho,  n.  s.  741)        1047 

Etter  V.  Armstvonu-  (46  Ind.  197)  469 

V.  Finn  (12  Ark.  6.32)  842 

V.  Greenawalt  (98  Pa.  St.  422)  1008 

Eubank's  Succession  (9  La.  An.  147)         470. 

488.  489 

Eubank  v.  Clark  (78  Ala.  73)    745,  748,  fl37 

V.  Landrani  (59  Tex.  247)  198 

Eubanks  v.  Dobbs  (4  Ark.  173)  620,  631 

Euper  I'.  Alkire  (37  Ark.  283)  200 

Eure  V  Eure  (3  Dey.  206)  5-39 

V.  Pittman  (3  Hawks,  364)  481 

Eustace  v.  Jahns  (38  Cal.  3)  757,  803 

Eustache  v.  Rodaquest  (11  Bush,  42)  201 

Eyan's  Appeal  (51  Conn.  435)  22,  947 

Appeal  (58  Pa.  St.  238)  94 

Eyans's  Estate  (11  Phila.  113)  1134,  1137 

Will  (29  N.  J.  Eq.  .571)  465 

Eyans  v.  Anderson  (15  Oh.  St.  324)  109 

V.  Arnold  (52  Ga.  169)  37,  88 

V.  Beaumont  (4  Lea,  599)  977,  978 

V.  Beaumont  (16  Lea,  713)  1099 

V.  Blackiston  (66  Mo   437)  724 

V.  Buchanan  (15  Ind.  438)  ."81 

V.  Chew  (71  Pa    St.  47)  722,  723 

V.  Enloe  (70  Wis.  .345)  &96 

V.  Eyans  (13  Bush.  587)       200,  214,  1076 

V.  Eyans  (1  Des.  515)  789 

V.  Evans  (9  Pai.  178)  284,  291 

V.  Evans  (9  Pa.  St.  190)  232 

V.  Evans  (29  Pa.  St.  277)  350 

V   Fisher  (40  Miss.  643)  9,  1041 

V.  Godbold  (6  Rich.  Eq.  26)  872,  902 

V.  Gordon  (8  Port.  346)  643 

V.  Halleck  (83  Mo.  376)  1039 

V.  Hardeman  (15  Tex.  480)  804 

V.  Harllee  (9  Rich.  L   .501)  902 

V.  Iglehart  (6  (i.  &  J.  171)  597,  598,  994, 

998,  999,  1000,  1167 

r.  Kin2;sberry  (2  Rand.  120)  727 

r.  Pierson  (9  Rich    L.  9)  270 

r.  Pierson  (1   Wend.  .30)  793 

V.  Price  (118  111.  593)  159 


TABLE   OF    CASES. 


Ixiii 


Evans  v.  Reed  (78  Pa.  St.  415) 
V.  Holjerts  (5  IJ.  &  ('.  8:2:)) 
r.  Siniiletarv  (U3  N.  C.  2J5) 
r.  Smith  (28  (ia.  U8) 
V.  Siivd.T  (04  Mo.  510) 
V.  Stcwait  (81  Va.  724) 


Piige 
8:ili 

5!(8 

1002 

57 

1087 

445 

V.  Tatem  (!)  S.  &  I!.  252)       3G3,  374,  04!) 

t'.  Tiipf)  (0  Madii.  04)  905 

Evarts  V.  Allen  (12  .lolin.  352)  82) 

V.  Nason  (11  Vt.  122)  115.) 

Eveleth  V.  Cniiicli  (15  .Ma<s.  203)  342 

Evelyn,  Ex  parte  (2  .M.  ^;  l\.  3)  400 

Everett  v.  Averv  (19  M<i.  130)  780 

V.  ("arr  (5!)".Me.  325)  888,  894,  988 

V.  Mount  (22  (Ja.  323)  942 

Everitt  r.  Everitt  (41  Harh.  385)  480 

V.  Everitt  (71  Iowa,  221) 

V.  Lane  (2  Ired.  E(i.  548)  904 

EversfieUl  v.  Eversfield  (4  Har.  &  J.  12)  1107 

Everson  v.  Pitnev  (40  N.  J.  Eq.  539)        1175 

Everston  r   Bnotli  (19  John.  480)  859 

Everts  v.  Everts  (62  Barb.  577)  1140 

Ew.ll  V.  Tidwell  (20  Ark.  136)  497 

Ewin  V.  Perrine  (5  Redf.  640)  47 

Evviiijr  V.  Ewiiiij  (.-S  Ind.  390)  505 

V.  Ewing  (44  Mo.  23)  270 

V.  Griswold  (43  Vt.  400)  82!) 

V.  Hiirhv  (7  Oh.,  pt.  1,  p.  198)  1031,  1008 

V.  Iloilister  (7  Oh.,  pt.  2,  p.  138)       1031, 

1034 

V.  Maurv  (3  Lea,  381)  853 

V.  Moses  (50  Ga.  204)  1123 

V.  Taylor  (70  Mo.  394)  775,  826 

Ex    parte.     For  cases    "Ex  parte,''   see 

"names  of  parties. 
Exchange  Bank  v.  Stone  (80  Kv.  109)      208, 

271 
V.  Tracv  (77  Mo.  594)  281 

Exendiiie  v.  Morris  (8  ilo.  App.  383)        1055 
Evies  r.  Carv  (1  Vern.  457)  3095 

Evre's  Appeal  (106  Pa.  St.  184)  1099 

EVre  V.  Goldiiii,-  (5  Binn.  472)  995 

Eyster  v.  Hathewav  (50  HI.  521)  253 


Fabens  v.  Fabens  (141  Mass.  395)  902 

Eai^an  v.  Fa-an  (15  Ala.  335)  1146,  1147 

)'.  Jones  (2  Dev.  &  B,  Eq.  69)  966 

Fairbairn  v.  Fisher  (4  Jones  Eq.  390)  544 

I'.  Fisher  (5  Jones  Eq.  385)  1146 

Fairbanks  v.  Hill  (3  Lea,  732)  518 

V.  Robinson  (04  Cal.  250)  176 

Fairchild  v.  Bascom  (35  Vt.  398)  42,  480 

Fairfax  v.  Brown  (00  Md.  50)  873 

r.  Fairfax  (7  Grat.  36)  542 

r.  Hunter  (7  Cr.  603)       22,  225,  303,  304 

Fairfield  v.  Lawson  i50  Conn.  501)  892 

Fairmairs  Appeal  (30  Conn.  205)       761,  704, 

1135 

Faloon  1-.  Mclntvre  (118  III.  292)  823 

Fambro  v.  Gantt  (12  Ala.  298)  695,  1055 

Famulener  v.  Anderson  (15  Oh.  St.  473)     553 

Fant  I'.  Talbot  (81  Kv.  23)  199 

Faran  v.  Robinson  (17  Oh.  St.  242)  1041,  1045 

Farish  v.  Cook  (78  Mo.  213)  871,  883 

Farlev  v.  Dunklin  (76  Ala   530)        329,  1089 

r.  McConnell  (7  Lans   428)  554 

V.  .MooiT  (79  Ala.  148)  284,  288,  293 

V.  Rinrden  (72  Ala  128)  216 

Farmer  v.  Simpson  (6  Tex.  303)  209 


Page 
Farmers  &  Merchants'  Bank  r.  Tappan 

(5  Sm.  &  M.  112)  332 

Farnam  r.  Brooks  (!)  I'ick.  212)  702 

Karnan  r.  Borders  ni9  111.  228)  19!) 

Farnham  v.  Thomp.son  (34  Minn.  330)       345, 

1246 
Farnsworth's  Will  (62  Wis.  474)  31,  44.  45,  46 
Farnsworth  v.  Lemons  (II  Huni)ib.  140)  1015 
Farnum  v.  Bascom  (122  JIass.  282)     908,  !)85, 

1113 

Farqubarson  v.  Cave  (2  Coll.  356)  123 

Farr  r.  Thompson  (Cheves,  37)  48 

Farrance  r.  Vilev  (21  L.J.  Ch.  313)  1232 

Farrar  v.  Dean  (24  Mo.  16)  1038 

V.  McCue  (89  N.  Y.  139)  719 

r.  Parker  (3  Allen,  550)  1 194 

V.  St.  Catharine's  College  (L.   R.   1 

Ch.  D.  234)  101 

V.  Winterton  (5  Beav.  1)  103 

Farrellv  v.  Ladd  (10  Allen,  127)  605 

Farrington  v.  King  (1  Bradf.  182)   1031,  10-36 
Farris  v.  Stoutz  (78  Ala.  130)  805,  841 

Farrow  v.  Farrow  (1  Del.  Ch.  457)     240,  259, 

204 

V.  Farrow  (13  Lea,  120)  200,  208 

Farwell  v.  Jacobs  (4  Mass.  034)  393 

Farys  r.  Farys  (Harp.  Cli.2Gl)  053 

Fatiieree  v.  Lawrence  (33  Miss  585)  71 

Faulds  V.  Jackson  (0  Notes  Cas.  Sup.  1)        70 

Faulkner  v.  Davis  (18  Grat.  051)  155 

V.  Faulkner  ,(73  Mo.  327)  741 

Favill  V.  Roberts  (50  N.  Y.  222)  1079 

Favorite  r.  Booher  (17  Oh.  St.  548)  820 

Faxon  v.  Dvson  (1  Cr.  C.  C.  441)  795 

Fay  V.  Cheiiev  (14  Pick.  399)  595 

"  V.  Haven"  (3  Met.  Mass.  109)       374,  375, 

649 

r.  Holloran  (35  Barb.  295)  638 

•   r.  Muzzev  (13  Gray.  53)         603,  744,  751 

V.  Keagei-  (2  Sneed,  200)  410 

V.  Taylor  (2  Gray,  154)  435.  1070 

V.  Wenzell  (8  Cush.  315)  3.36 

Fears  v.  Brooks  (12  Ga.  195)  607 

Feit  r.  Vanatta  (21  N.  J.  Eq.  84)  8  )7 

Felch  V.  Finch  (52  fowa,  563)  258.  2'!l 

Fell's  Estate  (13  Phila.  289)  1151 

Fellows  I'.  Allen  (60  X.  H.  439)  104 

V.  Lewis  (05  Ala.  343)  855 

V.  Little  (40  N  H.  27)  1213, 1214 

V.  Smith  (130  Mass.  370)  189 

V.  Tann  (9  Ala.  999)  (i07 

Felton  V.  Sowles  (57  Vt.  382)      542,  543,  545. 

1187 

Feltz  V.  Clark  (4  Humph.  79)  545 

Female  Acad.  r.  Sullivan  (1 10  111.  375)        913 

Femings  r.  Jarrat  (1  Es)i.  335)  419 

Fenix  V.  Fenix  (80  Mo.  27)  1033,  1001 

Fenn  r.  Bolles  (7  Abb.  Pr.  202)  2!i3 

Fennell  r.  Henry  (70  Ala.  484)         1219,  1223 

ppnner  r  Manchester  (6  R.  1. 140)  821 

Fennimore  i*.  Fennimore  (3  N.J.  Eq.  292)  738 

Fenton  r.  Reed  (4  John.  52)  223 

F'enwick  v.  Chapman  (9  Pet.  461)  1090 

V.  Sears  (1  Cranch,  259)  358,  373 

Ferav's  Succession  (31  La.  An.  727)  555 

Ferebee  i'.  Doxey  (0  Ired.  L.  448)  052 

Ferguson  v.  Barnes  (58  Ind.  109)  421 

I'.  Broome  (1  Bradf.  10)  1271 

V.  Carson  (80  Mo.  673)       1032,  1  .')40.  1 1'lg 

V.  Carson  (9  Mo.  App.  497)    1J45,  1 133 

V.  Carson  (13  Mo.  App.  29)       1198 


Ixlv 


TABLE   OF   CASES. 


Pajre 
Ferffiison  v.  Collins  (8  Ark.  241)  526 

V.  Hedges  (1  Harr.  524)  943 

r.  Mason  (2Sneed,  018)  808 

V.  Mason  (00  Wis.  ;377)  212 

V.  Miller  (1  Cow.  24.3)  5!)7 

(..  Scott  (4!)  Miss.  500)  1020,  1030 

Fcrnbacher  v.  Fernbacher  (4  Dem.  227: 

s.  c.  17  Abb.  N.  C.  33!))  570,  1000 

Fernie,  In  re  (G  Notes  Cas.  057)  510 

Ferre  v.  Amer.  Board  (53  Vt.  102)  "20 

Ferrers  v.  Ferrers  (Cas.  Temp.  Talb.  2)     1010 
Ferrie  v.  Atherton  (28  E.  L.  &  Kq.  1)  227 

V.  Pnblic  Adm'r  (3  Bradf.  249)  400 

Ferrin  v.  IMvriek  (41  N.  Y.  315)  7G0 

Ferris's  Will  (Tuck.  15)  505 

Ferris  r.  Ferris  (89  111.  4.52)  581 

V.  Hifflev  (20  Wall.  375)  347 

V.  Van  Vechten  (9  Hun,  12)  1151 

Ferrv's  Appeal  (102  Pa.  St.  207)         880,  883 
Ferry  v.  Laible  (31  N.  J.  Eq.  ,500)  732 

Ferse  &  Hembling's  Case  (4  Co.  Gl  b)  50 

Ferson  v.  Dodge  (23  Pick.  287)  9-50 

Fessenden,  Appellant  (77  Me.  98)     1073, 1151 
Fetrow's  Estate  (58  Pa.  St.  424)  872 

Fetters  v.  Baird  (72  Mo.  389)  332 

Feurth  v  .  Anderson  (87  Mn.  354)  1199 

Fickes  v.  Wiseman  (2  Watts,  314)  1222 

Fickle  V.  Snepp  (97  Ind.  289)      813,  863,  1250 
Fidelity  Trust  Co.'s  Appeal  (108  Pa.  St. 

492)  888,  889,  964 

Field's  Appeal  (.36  Pa.  St.  11)  1097 

Field  V.  Field  (77  N.  Y.  294)  807 

V.  Gamble  (47  Ala.  443)  1061 

V.  Gibson  (20  Hun,  274)  428 

V.  Goldsby  (28  Ala.  218)  -329 

r.  Hitchcock  (14  Pick.  405)       1125,  1129 

V.  Hitchcock  (17  Pick.  182)  9;!8 

V.  Pelot  (1  McMull.  369)  550 

r.  Schieffelin  (7  John.  Ch.  150)  387 

Fields  V.  Carlton  (75  Ga.  554)  503,  515 

V.  Wheatlev  (1  Sneed,  351)  773,  859 

Fiester  v.  Stiepard  (92  N.  Y.  251)    1209,  1249 

Eight  V.  Holt  (80  111.  84)  203 

Fike  V.  Green  (64  N.  C  665)    715,  1045,  1142 

Filhour  v.  Gibson  (4  Ired.  Eq.  455)  420 

Fillev  V.  Register  (4  Minn.  .391)  609 

FiUvan  v.  Lavertv  (3  Fla.  72)  287,  802 

Filmore  v.  Reithtiian  (6  Col.  120)    715,  1055, 

1079, 1086 

Finch  V.  Edmonson  (9  Tex.  504)      1021. 1031 

V.  Finch  (14  Ga.  362)  341.  464 

r.  Finch  (5  S.  E.  K.  .348)  701 

V.  Ragland  (2  Dev.  Eq.  1.37)      669, 1137. 

1189 

V.  Rogers  (11  Humph.  559)  991,  993 

I'.  Sink  (46  111.  169)  10-32 

Findlav  V.  Triirg  (83  Va.  5.39)  1155 

EindleV  v.  Findlev  (11  Grat.  4.34)  264 

Fine  v.  King  (33  N.  J.  Eq.  108)  1075 

Finger  r.  Finger  (64  N.  C.  183)  3.57 

Fink's  Succession  (13  La.  An.  103)  1174 

Fink  V.  Fink  (12  La.  An.  301)  922,  929 

Finlav  r.  Chirnev  (L.  R.  20  Q.  B.  D.  494)   617 

V.  King  (3  Pet.  346)  951,  952,  954 

Finlev  V.  Bent  (95  N.  Y.  364)  952 

Finn*.  Hempstead  (24  Ark.  Ill)  537 

Finnev's  Appeal  (37  Pa.  St.  323)  1159 

Appeal  (113  Pa.  St.  11)  884 

Finnev  v.  State  (9  Mo.  227)  819,  1269 

Finncane  r.  Gavfere  (3  Phill.  405)  471 

Firestone  v.  Firestone  (2  Oh.  St.  415)         244 


Page 
First   Baptist   Church  r-.  Eobberson  (71 

Mo.  326)  353 

First  National  Bank  r.  Balcom  (35  Conn. 

351)  120 

r.  Eastern  R.  R.  (124  Mass.  518)  8-59 

First  Parish  v.  Cole  ('^  Pick.  232)  913 

First    Universalist    Society   v.   Fitch    (8 

Grav,  421)  *  922 

Fish  r.  Coster  (28  Hun.  64)  718 

r.  Fish  (1  Conn.  .5-59)  2:;G 

V.  Liditner  (44  I\Io.  268)  1129,  1254 

V.  Morse  (8  Mich.  34)  8.54 

Fisher,  In  re  (17  Pac.  R.  640)  1200 

In  re  (4  Wis.  254)  97 

V.  Banta  (66  N.  Y.  468)  726 

V.  Bassett  (9  Leigh,  119)       325,  3.30,  568, 

1089 

V.  Fisher  (1  Bradf.  -335)     655,  1108,  1170 

V.  Fisher  (5  Pa.  L.  J.  R.  178)  6.';8 

V.  Grimes  (1  Sm.  &  M.  Ch.  107)  2:;2 

V.  Hill  (7  Mass.  86)  939 

V.  Skillin-  n  (18  N.  J.  Eq.  229)  7.37 

V.  Tavlor  (2  Kawie,  33)  9.56 

V.  Williams  (56  Vt.  586)  609 

r.  Wood  (65  Tex.  199)  1083,  1123 

risk  V.  Attorney  General   (L.  R.  4  Eq. 

5-21)  9.34 

V.  Eastman  (5  N.  H  240)  232 

V.  Keene  (35  Me.  .349)  915 

V.  Norvel  (9  Tex.  13)  402 

V.  Wilson  (15  Tex.  4.30)  1034 

Fiske  V.  Cobb  (6  Grav,  144)  994 

V.  Kellogg  (3  Oretr.  503)  1031 

Fitch  V.  Peckham  (16  Vt.  1.50)  824 

V.  W^itbeck  (2  Barb.  Ch.  161)  1038 

Fite  V.  Beaslev  (12  Lea.  328)  934,  944 

Fithian  v.  Jones  (12  Phila.  201)  284 

Fitzgerald's  Estate  (.57  Wis.  .508)     1153, 1164 

Fitzgerald  v.  Fernandez  (71  Cal.  504)         201 

r.  Glancy  (49  111.  405)  564 

Fitzimmons's  Appeal  (40  Pa.  St   422)      1043 

Fitzpatrick  r.  Fitzpatrick  (36  Iowa,  674)    892 

Flanders  v.  Flanders  (23  Ga.  249)  702 

V.  Lane  (54  N.  H.  390)  1254 

Flash  V.  Gresham  (36  Ark.  529)  431 

Flatt  V.  Stadler  (16  Lea,  .371)  214 

Fleece  ».  Jones  (71  Ind.  340)  1230 

Fleet  V.  Hegeman  (14  Wend.  42)  596 

V.  Simmons  (3  Dem.  542)  576 

Fleetwood  r.  Fleetwood  (2  Dev.  Eq.  222)   896 

Fleming  v.  Bale  (23  Kan.  88)  1030 

V.  Boiling  (3  Call,  75)  6,52 

r.  Foran'(]2  Ga.  594)  702 

r.  McKesson  (3  -Tones  Eq.  316)  3-57 

V.  Talliafer  (4  Heisk.  -352)  8-53 

Fletcher  v.  Ashbarner  (1  Bro.  C   C.  497)    726 

v.  Fletcher  (2:»  Vt   719)       ,569,  588,  1204 

r.  Steven'on  (3  Hare.  360)  790 

r.  Wier  (7  Dana,  -345)  329,  359.  7.52 

Flinn  r.  Barber  (64  Ala.  193)  238 

V.  Chase  (4  Den.  85)  568,  582.  1254 

r.  Davis  (18  Ala.  132)  872,  879 

V.  Flinn  (4  Del.  Ch.  44)  1007.  1012 

V.  Owen  (.58  111.  Ill)  68 

V.  Shackleford  (42  Ala.  202)         339,  803 

Flint  V.  Pattee  (33  N.  H.  520)  119 

V.  Valpev  (130  Mass.  385)  8.52 

Flintham's  Appeal  (11  S.  &  R.  16)  761 

Flintham  v.  Bradford  (10  Pa.  St  82)  100 

Flitner  r.  Hanlv  (18  Me.  270)  8.58 

V.  Hanlv  (19  Me.  261)  858 


TABLE   OF   CASES. 


Ixv 


Flood  r.  Pilgrim  (32  Wis.  376) 

r.  I'viij^od  (7!l  Kv.  (J07) 
Flora  I'.  Meiiiiice  (12  Ala.  8:!0) 
Florence  v.  Sands  (4  Kudf.  2iHi) 
Florentine  v.  Harton  (2  Wall.  210) 


Pa-c 

714 

;3fi,  04,  71 

401 

!)S8 

1088 


Florey  v.  Floroy  (24  Ala.  241)  34,  51,  484 

Flournov  r.  Flonrnov  (1  Busli,  515)  8.)0 

Fl.'vd  r."  ( 'alveit  (53  Miss.  37)  223 

'v.  HcrrinK  (>>i  N.  V.  40!J)  715 

V.  Miller  ((il  Ind.  224)  802 

V.  Triester  (8  Rich.  Kij.  248)  1173 

V.  Knst  (58  Tex.  503)  10i;4 

V.  Wallace  (31  Ga.  (i^8)  7!»4 

Flvnn  V.  Mori^an  (55  Conn.  130)  8i!3 

Fulev  V.  Hnslivvav  (71  111.  380)  702 

V.  McDonald"  (4(5  Miss.  238)       1032,  1040 

V.  Wallace  (2  Ind.  174)  82,") 

Foltzv.  I'etors  (Hi  Ind   244)  1072 

V.  I'ronse  (17  111.  487)  576,  (>3ii 

V.  Wert  (103  Ind.  404)  _  1217 

Fonereau  r.  Fonereaii  (3  .\tk.  645)  !'  t2 

Fontain  v.  Kavenel  (17  How.  36:))      720,  021, 

930 
244 


238 

738 


716 

276 

8.) 

55'.) 

702 

229,  230 

71,  8),  464 


967,  974, 


Fontaine  v.  Dimlap  (82  Ky.  321) 

V.    Boatman's    Savings    Insfitntion 
(57  Mo.  552) 
Fonte  V.  Ilorton  (36  Miss.  3.50) 
F'onteheu's  Succession  (28  La.  An.  638)   1057, 

11116 

Fontenet  v.  De  Raillon  (8  La.  An.  509)     1055 

Foos  V.  Scarf  (55  Md.  301)  949 

Foote,  Api.ell.int  (22  Pick.  299)  638 

V.  Foote  (61  Mich.  181)        4-33,  466,  816, 

1241 
V.  Overman  (22  III.  App.  181)  599,  1056 
V.  Sanders  (72  Mo.  616)  729 

Forbes  v.  Gordon  (3  Phillim.  014)  79 

V.  Halsey  (26  N    Y.  53)     330,  1087,  1089 
V.  Peacock   (11   Sim.    152,    12   Sim 

528) 

V.  Sweesv  (8  Neb.  520) 

Forbing  v.  Weber  (99  Ind.  588) 

Ford  tC  Adams  (43  Ga.  .340) 

V.  Blount  (3  Ired.  516) 

V.  F:rskine  (.50  Me.  227) 

i\  Ford  (7  Hnnipb.  92) 

V.  Ford  (23  N.  II.  212) 

V.  Ford  (70  Wis.  19) 

V.  Gresiory  (10  B.  Mon.  175) 

V.  Heiinessev  (70  Mo.  580) 

V.  Porter  (li  Rich.  Eq.  238) 

V.  Smith  (60  Wis.  222) 

V.  Thornton  (3  Leigh,  695) 

V.  Travis  (MS.,  S.  C.) 

V  Walsworth  (15  Wend.  449)     561,  1036 

Forde  v.  Exempt  Fire  Co.  (50  Cal.  299)      G31 

Fore  I'.  McKenzie  (58  Ala.  115)  1078 

Forester  v.  Watford  (67  Ga.  508)  271 

Forman's  Will  (.54  Barb.  274)  33,  34,  89 

Forman  v.  Marsh  (11  N.  Y.  544)  1233 

V.  Swift  (7  Lans.  443)  43 

Fornev  v.  Ferrell  (4  W.  Va.  729)  46 

Forniquet  v.  F'orstall  (34  Miss.  87)     746,  749, 

751 
Forrester  v.  Forrester  (37  Ala.  398)     530,  531 
V.  Forrester  (40  Ala.  557)  1207 

Forsyth's  Succession  (20  La.  An.  33)         1201 
Forsyth  i-.  Burr  (37  Barb.  540)  G02,  663 

V.  Ganson  (5  Wei  1.  558)  736 

Forsvthe  v.  Forsvthe  (108  Pa.  St.  129)      72J. 

948 
VOL.  I. — e 


Pi;,'e 
Fort  r.  Battle  (13  Sm.  &  M.  1-33)  1228 

Fortre  v.  Fortre  (1  Show.  351)  517 

Forlron  v.  Alford  (62  Tex.  .576)  332 

Fortune,  Matter  of  (14  Abb.  N.  C  415)     1235 
V.  Buck  (23  Conn.  1)  74 

P'orward  v.  Forward  (6  Allen,  494)  1146, 

1152,  11.59 

Forwood  V.  Forwood  (5  S.  W.  K.  361)        205 

Fosdick  V.  Fosdick  (6  Allen,  41)  896 

Foskett  V.  Wolf  (19  111.  App.  33)  1155 

Fosselman  r.  Elder  (98  I'a.  St.  159)  60 

Foster's  Appeal  (74  Pa.  St.  391)  234 

Appeal  (87  Pa.  St.  t!7)  92,  481,  482 

Will  (13  Phila.  .567)  481 

Foster  c.  Birch  (14  Ind.  445)  1046 

V.  Colluer  ( 107  Pa.  St.  305)  8-12 

r.  Cook  (3  Bro.  C.  C.  340)  889 

V.  Craige  (2  Dev.  &  B.  Eq.  209)  722 

r.  Crenshaw  (3  Munf.  514)  ]26ii 

V.  Davis  (46  Mo.  268)  1158 

V.  FiHeld  (20  Pick.  67)  646.  1239 

V.  Foster  (36  N.  H.  437)  161.  108 

V.  Foster  (7  Pai.  48)  1200,  1201 

V.  Marshall  (22  N.  II.  491)  276 

r.  Me.ms  (1  Speers  Eq.  569)  224 

V.  Nowlin  (4  Mo.  18)  414,  420 

V.  Thomas  (21  Conn.  285)  697,  1048 

V.  Wise  (10  N.  F:ast.  687)  548 

Fotheree  v.  Lawrence  (-30  .Miss.  416)  502 

Foubert  v.  De  Cresseron  (Show.  P.  C.  194)  60 

Fouke  r.  Kemp  (6  Harr.  &  J.  135)  8:)8 

FonlUes's  Succession  (12  La.  An.  537)     1167, 

1187 
Fournier  i\  Chisholm  (45  Mich.  417)  209 

Fourniquet  v.  Perkins  (7  How.  U.  S.  160)  347 
Fourth   Eccl.    Soc.  v.  Mather  (15  Conn. 

587)  6.39 

Fowle  V.  Coe  (63  Me.  245)  1046 

Fowler  r.  Kell  (14  Sm.  &  M.  68)  517 

V.  Lock  wood  (3  Kedf.  465)  324,  349,  1189 

V.  Poor  (93  N.  C.  466)  1078 

V  Rice  (31  Ind.  258)  612 

V.  Stagner  (.55  Tex.  393)  69,  73 

V.  True  (76  Me.  43)  646,  848,  1267 

Fowlkes  V.  Nashville  U.  R.  (9  Heisk.  829)  627 

F'ox's  Estate  (92  N.  Y.  93)  774 

Will  (.52  N.  Y.  530)  593,  912,  913 

Fox  r.  Carr  (16  Hun.  434)  442 

V.  Fox  (L.  R.  11  Eq.  142)  1215 

V.  Garrett  (28  Beav.  16)  788 

V.  Probate  Jiidse  (48  Mich.  643)         1199 

V.  Southack  (12  Mass.  143)  22 

V.  Van  Norman  (11  Kan.  214)  429 

Foxworth  V.  White  (72  Ala.  224)  723 

Fraenznick  v.  Miller  (1  Dem.  136)      345,  352 

Frampton  r.  Blume  (129  Mass.  152)  1097 

France's  Estate  (75  Pa.  St.  220)  759,  872. 

883,  1102 

Frank's  Appeal  (59  Pa.  St.  190)  608 

Frank  v.  Frank  (71  Iowa.  646)  966 

Franklin  v.  Armtield  (2  Sneed,  .305)  1039 

V.  Coffee  (18  Tex.  413)  194,  200 

Franks  v.  Chapman  (64  Tex.  159)       ^  _   _69 

r.  Cooper  (4  Yes.  7ti3)  787,  788 

Frarv  r.  Gusha  (.59  Vt.  257)  39 

Eraser  v.  Alexander  (2  Dev.  Eq.  348)       1104 

V.  Citv  Council  (23  S.  C.  373)  863 

Frazer,  In  re  (92  N.  Y.  239)  207,  1155 

r.  Bevill  (11  Grat.  9)  992 

r.  Fulcher(]7  Oh.  260)  403 

Frazier  v.  Barnum  (19  N.  J.  Eq.  316)         163 


Ixvi 


TABLE   OF    CASES. 


357, 


Page 
Frazier  v.  Frazier  (2  Leigh,  G42)         552,  944 

r.  Pankov  (1  Swan, "75)     8o3,  1022,  lO:!") 

r.  Stueiiroil  (7  Iowa,  3;j!))  1021,  l():i7 

Frederick  v.  (irav  (10  S  &  H.  182)  IHiO 

Fredcri.ks  r.  Iseiinian  (41  N.  J.  L.  212)   12(15 
Freelaml  v.  Dazev  (2')  111.  2,)4)        1122,  1124 

V.  Freeland  ('l28  Mass.  50!))  205 

FreeiiKiii's  Appeal  (08  Pa.  St.  151)  360 

Freeman  v.  Anderson  (11  Mass.  liJO)  605 

V.  Burnham  (36  Conn.  46U)  609,  631 

V.  Coit  (27  Hun,  447)  702 

V.  Coit  (96  N.  Y.  63)  1209 

V.  Cook  (6  Ired.  Kq.  373)  651 

V.  Freeman  (130  Mass.  260)  284,  2:»1 

V.  Freeman  (142  Mass.  98)  284 

V.  Kelloirg  (4  Hedf.  218) 

V.  Kahm  (58  Cm).  Ill) 

V.  Reagan  (26  Ark.  373) 

V.  Stewart  (41  Miss.  138) 

V.  Worrill  (42  (la.  401) 
Freke  p.  Carberv  (L.  R.  16  Eq.  461) 
French's  Petition  (17  N.  H.  472) 
Frencii  v.  Crosby  (23  Me.  276) 

V.  Currier  (47  N.  H.  88) 

V.  French  (14  W.  Va.  458) 

V.  Hovt  (6  N.  H.  370) 

V.  Lord  (09  Me.  537) 

V.  Lovejov  (12  N.  H.  458) 

V.  Merrill" (6  N.  H.  405) 

V.  Peters  (33  Me.  396) 

V.  Raymond  (39  Vt.  623) 

V.  Stfatton  (79  Mo.  560) 

V.  Winsor  (24  Vt.  402) 
Frere  v.  Peacocke  (1  Rob.  Feci.  R.  442)  34.  35 
Freret  v.  Freret  (31  La.  An.  500)  1230 

Fret  well  v.  McLemore  (52  Ala.  124)  375, 

432,  433,  819 
Freud,  In  re  (73  Cal.  555)  500 

Freund  v.  INIcCall  (73  Mo.  343)  197,  215 

Frew  I'.  Clarke  (80  Pa.  St.  170)    49,  66,  67.  76 
Frey  v.  Demarest  (16  N.  J.  Eq.  236)        1123, 

1231 

V.  Frey  (17  N.  J.  Eq.  71) 

V.  Heydt  (116  Pa.  St.  601) 

V.  Thompson  (66  Ala.  287) 
Frick's  Appeal  (114  Pa.  St.  29) 


543,  578 

1235 

1123 

287 

523 

.379 

1200 

259 

694 

54 

1031 

239 

286 

643 

249 

124 

179,  215 

.331,  1186 


1163 

1223 

961 

526,  533, 

576,  582 

684 

1035,  1037 

228 

84 


Fridge  v.  Buhler  (6  La.  An.  272) 
Fridley  r.  Murphy  (25  III.  146) 
Friend  v.  Friend  (53  Mich.  543) 
Frierson  v.  Beall  (7  Ga.  438) 

V.  General  Assembly  (7  Heisk.  683)    908 

V.  Wesherry  (11  Rich.  L.  353)  189 

Frink  v.  Frink  ■(43  N.  H.  508)  336 

V.  Pond  (46  N.  H.  125)  72 

Fripp  V.  Talbird  (1  Hill  Ch.  142)     1118,  1270 

Frisbv  V.  Withers  (61  Tex.  134)  505,  719 

Fristoe  I'.  Burke  (5  La.  An.  657)  1083 

Fritz's  Estate  (14  Phila.  260)  1062 

Kritz  V.  McGill  (31  Minn.  536)  10.56 

Froneberger  ».  Lewis  (70  N.  C.  456)         1087 

V.  Lewis  (79  N.  C.  426)  702 

Fross's  Appeal  (105  Pa.  St.  258)        124,  730. 

1124 
Frost  V.  Peering  (21  Me.  156)  251 

V.  Denman  (41  N.  J.  Eq.  47)  1137 

V.  Libby  (79  Me.  56)  631 

Frothingham  v.  March  (1  Mass.  247)         1052 
Froust  V.  Brutnn  (15  Mo.  619)  621 

Frowner  ),'.  Johnson  (20  Ala.  477)  433 

Fry's  Will  (2  R.  I.  88)  71,472 


Pafre 

Frye  v.  Crockett  (77  Me.  157)       552,  553,  554 

Fudges  burn  (51   Mo.  264)  708,711 

V.  Fudge  (23  Kans.  416)  1034,  1054,1076 

Fuhrer  r.  State  (.55  Ind.  150)  306 

Fulford  V.  Hancock  (Busb.  Eq.  55)  881 

FuUeck  V.  Allinson  (3  Hagg.  527)  34 

Fulleiiwider  v.  Watson  (113  Ind.  18)  877,  948 

Fuller,  Ex  parte  (2  Sto.  327)  409 

V.  Fuller  (83  Ky.  345)  72 

V.  Little  (59  Ga."  338)  702,  1087 

r.  McEwen  (17  Oil.  St.  288)  1099 

V.  Wason  (7  N.  H.  341)  229,  230 

V.  Winthrop  (3  Allen,  51)  943 

V.  Young  (10  Me.  365)  636 

Fulton  r.  Moore  (25  Pa.  St.  468)  500 

V.  Nicholson  (7  Md.  104)  1071, 1074 

Funk  r.  Dayis  (103  Ind.  281)  891,  892 

V.  Eggleston  (92  111.  515)  1097 

Fuqua  r.  Chaffe  (26  La.  An.  148)  210 

r.  Dinwiddle  (6  Lea,  645)  833 

Furlong  r'.  Riley  (103  111.  628)  1027 

Furman  r.  Coe  (1  Cai.  Cas.  96)  1158 

Furth  V.  Wyatt  (17  Ney.  180)  11.57 

Fu.selier  v.  Babineau  (11  La   An.  393)         654 

Fussev  V.  White  (113  111.  637)  884 

Fvffec.  Beers  (18  Iowa,  4)  201 


Gable's  Appeal  (-36  Pa.  St.  -395)  1163 

Gable  V.  Daub  (40  Pa.  St.  217)  887 

Gadsden  v.  .Jones  (1  Fla.  3:i2)  1258 

Gafford  r.  Dickenson  (37  Kan.  287)    .3.57, 1133 

Gafney  t).  Kenison  (10  Atl.  R.,  N.  H.  706)  3.54 

Gage  V.  Acton  (1  Salk.  .325)  390 

'  r.  Gage  (29  N.  H.  533)  1244,  1246 

V.  Schroder  (73  III.  44)  1034 

Gainer  v  Gates  (-34  N.  W.  798)  273 

Gaines's  Succession  (38  La  An.  123)         488 

Gaines  v.  Alexander  (7  Grat.  2.57)  794 

r.  Chew  (2  How.  U.  S  619)  470,  497 

V.  De  La  Croix  (6  Wall   719)  695 

r.  Fender  (82  Mo   497)  494 

V.  Gaines  (9  B,  Mon.  295)  244 

V.  Hammond  (2  JlcCrary,  432)  844 

V.  Hennen  (24  How.  U.  S.  553)     780,  498 

V.  Kennedy  (53  Miss.  103)  3-30,  1090 

Gainev  v.  Sexton  (29  Mo.  449)  777 

Gains"i,-.  Gains  (2  A.  K.  Marsh  190)       89,  90 

Gainus  v.  Cannon  (42  Ark.  503)  612 

Gail  her  v.  Gaither  (20  Ga.  709)  40 

I'.Gaither  (23  Ga.  .521)  501 

V.  Welch  (3  Gill  &  J.  259)  1022 

Galln-aith  v.  Fleming  (60  Mich.  408)  254,  255 

r.  McLain  (84  111.  379)  1221 

V.  Zimmerman  (100  Pa.  St.  374)  836 

Gale  V.  Drake  (51  N.  H.  78)  873 

V.  Gale  (21  Beay.  249)  103 

V.  Kinzie  (80  111.  132)  2.30 

V   Nickerson  (144  Mass.  415)  1203 

t:  Ward  (14  Mass.  352)  603 

Gall.  In  re  (5  Dem.  374)  109 

(Gallagher's  Appeal  (48  Pa.  St.  121)        1104 

Gallini  r.  Galiini  (5  B.  &  Ad.  621)  881 

Galliyan  v.  Eyans  (1  Ball  &  Beattv,  191)  401 

Gallman  v.  Gallman  (5  Strobh.  L.  207)      324 

Galloway  r.  Bradfield  (86  N.  C.  163)  770 

1-.  Carter  (100  NC.  Ill)  870 

V.  McPherson  (35  N.  W,  R.,  Mich. 

114)  762 

V.  Trout  (2  G.  Greene,  595)  803 

Gallup  V.  Gallup  (11  Met.  Mass.  445)  674 


TABLE   OF   CASES. 


Ixvii 


(laltnn  I).  Hancock  (2  Atk.  424)       1093,  110(; 
(iainaclie  v.  Ganilis  (52  AIo.  2S7)  477 

Gaina-c  ;-.  Hiisliell  (1  Mo.  Ai.p.  41(;)         1142 
Gamble  r.  Gamble  (11  Ala.  i»li(i)  ."S.' 

V.  (;il>s(.ii  (.-)!>  Mo.  58.-))     1142,  114.3,  llii8 
V.  Wattcr.sou  (83  N.  C.  573)  ]ur(i 

Gambiill  v.  Forest  Lodge  (06  Md.  17)      !)l)l, 

yi(i 
Gann  r.  Gvc£rorv  (3  DeG.  ^r.  &  G.  777)  48(; 
Gaiio  r.  Kisk  (43  Oli.  St.  4(12)  IKi 

Gaiis  r.  Daheriiott  (40  \.  .(.  Kq.  184)  5.il 

Gansevoort  v.  Nelson  (i>  Hill,  381J)  8i)5 

Gant  V.  Hcnlv  ((i4  Mo.  1(.2;  270 

(Jaratv  r.  l)n'  Hose  (5  S.  C.  4')3)  181,  201 

Garbe'r's  Estate  (10   I'ac.  2Ji)  525 

Garberf.  Commonwealth  (7  I'a.  St.  265)    8  JO. 

1140 

Garhtit  r.  Bowlinsr  (81  Mo.  214)  2i!5 

Garden  r.  Hunt  (Clieves,  42.  Ft.  II.)  3(53 

Gardener  r.  Woodvear  (1  Oli.  170)  .5."2 

Gardenville  r.  Walker  (52  .Md.  4.52)  10i)8 

Gardiner  i:  Gardiner  (34  N.  Y.  155)       32,  40 

r.  Guild  (100  .Mass.  25)  942 

Gardner  i\  Baker  (25  Iowa.  343)  009 

V.  Calln-ban  (01  Wis.  91)  841 

V.  ('olhns(2  I'et.58)  154 

V.  (]antt  (19  Ala.  006)    384,  410,  545,  994 

V.  (Jarduer  (42  Ala.  101)  342 

V.  Gardner  (37  N.  .T.  Eq.  487)  8)0 

r.  Gardner  (7  Pai.  112)  678.  llill 

V.  (iardner  (10  R.  1.211)  2'!0 

V.  Gardner  (22  Wend.  526)     39,  40,  118. 

124 

V.  Greene  (5  K.  L  104)  2  !2 

v.  Hever  (2  Pai.  11)  898 

r.  Ladue  (47  III.  211)  494 

V.  l.amback  (47  Ga.  133)  34.  43 

V.  Printup  (2  Barh   83)  907,  974 

Garesche  v.  Lewis  (93  Mo.  197)  •   817 

Garesche  r.  Priest  (78  Mo.  120)  705.  709 

V.  Priest  (9  Mo.  App.  270)  705,  1139 

Garibaldi  v.  Jones  (48  Ark.  230)       190,  199, 

200.  200 

Garland  v.  Garland  (73  Me.  97)  1002 

V.  Harri.son  (8  Leisxh,  308)  150 

V.  Watt  (4  Ired.  L.  287)  949 

Garlick  v.  Patter.sou  (2  Chev.  27)  590 

Garner  v.  Bond  (61  Ala.  84)  211,  212 

V.  l.vles  (.-35  M  ss.  170)  417 

V.  TueUer  (01  .Mo.  427)  1160, 12.56 

Garnett  r.  Carson  (11  ?iIo.  App.  290)  707 

Garrard  r.  (Jarrard  (7  Bush,  430)  204 

Garraud's  Estate  (35  Cal.  3-30)  109 

Garrett  v.  Bruner  (.59  Ala.  5Io)  1030 

V.  Garrett  (2  Strobh.  Eq.  272)  1145 

V.  Trabue  (82  Ala.  227)  833 

Garrison  r.  Co.x  (95  N.  C.  353)     530,  531,  57" 

V.  Garrison  (2  N.  J.  Eq.  206)  41 

V.  (iarrison  (29  N.  J.  L.  153)  890 

Garrow  r.  Carpenter  (1  Port.  359)  8;)5 

(iarth  V.  Tavlor  (1  Freem.  201)  410 

Garthwaite  V.  Lewis  (25  N.  J.  Eq.  351)     944 

(iarvey  v.  McCue  (3  Redf.  313)  702 

Garvin  v.  Williams  (44  Mo.  405)  49 

V.  Williams  (50  Mo.  206)  477 

Garwood  v.  Garwood  (29  Cal.  514)  1190,1254 

Gaskell  v.  Case  (18  Iowa,  147)  183 

V.  ^larshall  (1  Mood.  &  L'ob.  132)       389 

GaskiU  V.  Gaskill  (7  R.  I.  478)  385 

(iasque  V.  Moody  (12  Sm.  \-  .M.  153)  574 

Gass  V.  Gass  (3  Humph.  278)  34,  65 


Pa^e 

Gass  V.  Simpson  (4  Oddw.  288)  116,  120,  121 

r.  Wilhite  (2  Dana,  170)  908 

(Jassman's  Estate  (10  W.  N.  Cas.  275)      980 

Gaston  r.  IV.vd  (.52  Tex.  2S2)  713 

V.  .McKiliijIit  (43  Te.x.  019)  80.5,  812 

Gates  V.  Sliiif^rue  (35  Miiiii.  392)      1029,  l(l;»0 

V.  Steele  (48  Ark.  539)  200 

V.  Treat  (17  Conn.  388)  1244 

V.  Whetstone  (8  S.  C.  244)  677,  738 

Gatfield  v.  Hanson  (57  How.  Pr.  331)         411 

(iatton  V.  Tallev  (22  Kans.  078)  204 

tiaultnev  v.  Nolan  (33  Miss.  509)  738 

(;aunt  V.  Tucker  (18  Ala.  27)  1155 

(Jaut  r.  Reed  (24  lex.  40)  287 

(iautier's  Succession  (8  l.a.  An   451)  810 

Gavin  v.  Gravdon  (41  Ind.  5.59)  1033 

Gaw  I'.  Huffman  (12  Giat.  028)  1095 

Gav,  Ex  parte  (5  M-iss.  419)  .593 

'  r.  (Jav  (00  Iowa,  415)  90,  94,  109 

V.  Gillilan  (92  Mo.  250)  48 

I'.  Hanks  (81  Kv.  552)  202 

V.  Lemle  (32  Mi'ss  309)  424 

r.  Miiiot  (3  Cush.  352)  410 

Gavle's  Succession  (27  La.  An.  547)         1181 

Gavlor's  Appeal  (43  Conn.  82)  68 

Gav  lor  V.  JIcHenrv  (15  Ind.  383)  227 

Geiirv  r.  Gearv  (07  Wis.  248)  824 

Geddis  V.  Hawk  (1  Watts.  280)  1005 

Geddv  V.  Bi.tltr  (3  Munf.  345)  534 

GeiRe'r  v.  Worth  (17  Oh.  St.  504)  1099 

(ieisler's  Succession  (32  [.a.  An.  128D)        188 

(Jelbach  v.  Shivelv  (07  Md.  498)    905,  966.  988 

Gelston  V.  Shiekls  (78  N.  Y.  275)  882 

Gelstrop  V.  Moore  (20  Miss.  206)      1021,  1047 

Geminill  v.  Richardson  (4  Del.  Ch.  599)      2i0 

(ienet  r.  Tallmadge  (1  John.  Ch.  3)  1012 

Genobles  r.  West\23  S.  (J.  154)  2.i7 

Gent  V.  Grav  (29  Me.  402)  620 

Gentili,  Goods  of  (Ir.  R.  9  Eq.  .541)  379 

Gentrv,  Goods  of  (L.  R.  3  V.  &  1).  80)         96 

v'.  McRevnolds  (12  Mo.  .533)  61 1 

V.  Woodson  (10  Mo.  224)  200 

George's  Appeal  (12  Pa.  St.  200)  340 

George  v.  Baker  (3  Allen,  320,  note)  734 

V.  Bussing  (15  B.  Mon.  558)  28,  1010 

V.  Cooper  (15  W.  Va.  555)  237 

V.  Dawson  (18  Mo.  407)  432 

V.  Elms  (46  Ark.  200)  1239 

V.  George  (47  N.  H.  27)  485.  9.52 

r.  Goldsbv  (23  Ala.  320)  9»2,  1120 

V.  Johnson  (45  N.  H.  4-50)  433 

V.  Spencer  (9  Md.  Ch.  353)  012 

V.  Van  Horn  (9  Barb.  523)  024 

V.  Watson  (19  Tex.  3.54)     330,  443,  1031 

r.  Williamson  (20  Mo.  90)  632 

Georgia  Home  Ins.  Co.  t:  Kinnier  (28 

Graf.  88)  647 

Georgia  R.  R.  Co.  r.  Winn  (42  Ga.  331)  028 
Ger.ard,  :Matter  of  (1  Dem  .244)  1174 

(Jerman  Bank  v.  Levscr  (.50  Wis.  258)  1022 
Gcrould  V.  Wilson  (81  N.  Y.  573)  552,  1123 
Gerrish  v.  Nason  (22  Me.  438)  37 

Gerrv,  In  re  (103  N.  Y.  445)  1002 

r.  Post  (13  How.  Pr.  118)  445 

Gcsell's  Appeal  (84  Pa.  St.  2;8)  1197 

Gest  V.  Wav  (2  Whart.  445)  903 

V.  Wilfiams  (4  Del.  Ch.  55)  1014 

Getchell  r.  Mc(^iuire  (70  Iowa,  71)  2-55 

Gel  man  r.  MiMahon  (30  Him,  531)  904 

Getz's  Estate  (12  Pbila.  143)  087 

Cover  V.  Wentzel  (08  Pa.  St.  84)  884 


Ixviu 


TABLE   OF   CASES. 


Page 

Gharky  v.  Werner  (Hfi  Cal.  388)  10^7 

Glieen  v.  Osborn  (17  S.  &  R.  171)  (>-'jH 

Gibbins  v.  Evdeii  (L  K.  7  E(i.  ;J71)  1111 

Gibbon  v.  Gibbon  (40  (Ja.  50-2)     887,  902,  !);3(i 

Gibbonev  v.  Kent  (82  Va.  y8:J)  1  Vi-i 

Gibbons  V.  Dawlev  (2  Cii.  Gas.  li)8)    798,  1117 

V.  Fairlamb  (2(j  Fa.  St.  217)  906 

V.  Maltvard  (Poph.  6)  927 

V.  Shepard  (2  Uem.  247)  12:54 

Gibbs  v.  Estv  (22  Hun,  2(3«)  258 

V.  Sliaw(17  Wis.  197)  S.-JO,  lO-Jl 

Giberson  v.  Giberson  (43  N.  J.  Eq.  IIU)     720, 

722 

Gibson  v.  Bailev  (9  N.  H.  108)  595 

V.  Bott  (7  Ves.  89)  '      995 

V.  Cook  (62  Md.  256)  347,  681 

V.  Dowell  (42  Ark.  164)  375 

V.  Farley  (16  Mass.  280)  6-36,  1143 

V.  Foste'r  (2  La.  An.  503)  1030 

V.  Gibson  (17  Eng.  L.  &  Eq.  349)        2157 

V.  Gibson  (4  .Tones,  425)  878 

V.  Gibson  (15  Mass.  106)  205 

V.  Gibson  (Walk.  364)  82 

V.  Gibson  (9  Yenj;.  329)  42 

V.  Hale  (17  Sim.  129)  1019 

V.  Hibbard  (13  Mich.  214)  119 

V.  3 eves  (6  Ves.  266)  32 

?j.  Land  (27  Ala.  117)  951 

V.  Lane  (9  Yert^.  475)  469 

V.  Lvon  (115  U.  S.  439)  1073 

V.  McCormick  (10  G.  &  J.  65)  272 

V.  Pitts  (69  N.  C.  155)  1032 

V.  Ponder  (40  Ark.  195)  362,  673 

V.  Roll  (27  111.  88)  1034 

Giddings  v.  Butler  (47  Tex.  535)  1068 

V.  Crosby  (24  Tex.  295)  175,  767 

V.  Seward  (16  N.  Y.  .365)  966 

V.  Turgeon  (58  Vt.  106)  73,  75 

Gifford  V.  Choate  (100  Mass.  343)  948 

V.  Thompson  (115  Mass.  478)  1003 

V.  Thorn  (9  N.  .T.  Eq.  702)  942 

Gilbert's  Appeal  (78  Pa.  St.  2i;6)  739 

Gilbert,  Matter  of  (104  N.  Y.  200)  1197 

i:  Bartlett  (9  Bush,  49)  706,  1149 

V.  Brashear  (12  Ala.  191)  8.56 

V.  Gilbert  (22  Ala.  529)  76,  476 

V.  Hard  wick  (11  Ga   5:)9)  744 

V.  Little  (2  Oh.  St.  156)  802 

V.  Reynolds  (51  111.  513)  274 

V.  Welsch  (75  Ind.  .557)  708 

Gilbraith  v.  Gedge  (16  B.  Mon.  6-31)  290 

V.  Winter  (10  Oh.  64)  966,  973,  980 

Gilchrist  v.  Cannon  (1  Coldw.  581)      37-5,  853 

r.  Fih-an  (2  Fla.  94)  1267 

V.  Rea  (9  Pai.  66)  1039,  1040 

V.  Shackelford  (72  Ala.  7)         1037,  1047 

V.  Steyenson  (3  Barb.  9)  979 

Giles  V.  Brown  (00  Ga.  058)  1182 

V.  Little  (104  U.  S.  231)  729.  949 

V.  Moore  (4  Gray,  600)       250,  1056,  1074 

V.  Warren  (L.  R.  2  P.  &  D.  401)  89 

V.  Wright  (26  Ark.  476)  831 

Gilkev  V.  Hamilton  (22  Midi.  283)      385,  411 

Gill,  Goods  of  (1  Hagg.  341)  516 

V.  Giyen  (4  Met.  Ky.  197)  1056 

Gillenwaters  v.  Scott  (62  Tex.  070)  1089 

Gillespie  V.  Hymans  (4  Dey.  1 19)  189 

Gilliam  v.  BroVn  (43  Miss.  641)  975,  982 

V.  Chancellor  (43  Miss.  437)  981 

V.  Mc.Tnnken  (2  S.  C.  442^  549,  550 

V.  Willey  (1  Jones  Eq.  128)  841 


P.pe 

Gilligan  V.  Lord  (51  Conn.  562)    125,  009,  610 

Giililan  v.  Swift  (14  Hun,  .574)  248,  251 

Gilliiand  v.  Caldwell  (1  S.  C.  194)  1270 

V.  Sellers  (2  Oh.  St.  223)  340 

Gillis  V.  Brown  (5  Cow.  388)  232 

Gilman,  Matter  of  (41  Hun,  561)  705 

V.  Gilman  (.52  Me.  165)  442 

t'.  Gilman  (.53  Me.  184)  164,  169 

V.  (iilman  (54  Me   531)  187 

V.  Gilman  (54  Me.  453)  362 

V.  Gilman  (1  Redf.  -354)  64 

V.  (iilman  (6  Th.  &  C.  211)  1146 

V.  Hamilton  (16  III.  225)  931 

V.  Healy  (55  Me.  120)  733 

V.  Redd'ington  (24  N.  Y.  9)  918 

u.  Wilber(l  Uem.547)  687 

Gilmer  r.  Baker  (24  W.  Va.  72)  391,  6o5 

V.  Gilmer  (42  Ala.  9)  965 

V.  Purgason  (50  Ala.  370)  373 

V.  Stone  (120  U.  S.  586)  893.  914 

Gilmore  v.  Dunson  (35  Tex.  435)  SjS 

V.  Gilmore  (7  (treg.  374)  276 

Gilruth  V.  Gilruth  (40  Iowa.  .346)  470 

Gilson  «.  Hutchinson  (120  Mass.  27)  246 

Ginders  ?;.  Ginders  (21  III.  App   522)         824 

Girard  v.  Wilson  (57  Pa.  St.  182)  1216 

Girod's  Succession  (4  La.  An.  386)  1166 

Gist  V.  Cockey  (7  H.  &  -J.  134)  1039 

i\  Gans  (30  Ark.  285)  804 

Githens  V.  Goodwin  (32  X.  .L  Eq.  286)     1127 

Gittings  V.  McDermott  (2  Mvl.  &  K.  09)     882, 

936 
Givens  v.  Higgins  (4  MeCord,  286)  417 

Glacius  V   Fogel  (88  N.  Y.  434)  637 

Gladson  v.  Whitney  (9  Iowa,  267)  715 

Glancey  v.  Glancev  (17  Oh.  St.  134)  64 

Glancy  v.  Murray' (49  111.  465)  10-38 

Glann,  Ex  parte "(2  Redf.  75)  10.36 

Glasgow  V.  Lipse  (117  U.  S.  327)       699,  710, 

1116 
V.  Sands  (3  G.  &  -T.  96)  642 

Glass  Co.  V.  Ludlum  (8  Kan.  40)         295,  -301 
Glassell  V.  Wilson  (4  Wash.  59)  308 

Gleason  v.  Fayerweather  (4  Gray,  348)      954 
V.  White  (34  Cal.  2.58)  "         807,  819 

Gleaton  v.  Lewis  (24  Ga.  209)  417 

Gleespin's  Will  (26  N.  J    Eq.  .523)  47 

Glen  V.  Fisher  (6  John,  Ch.  33)       1010,  101.5. 

1099 

Glenn's  Estate  (74  Cal.  567)  865 

Glenn,  In  re  (20  S.  C.  64)       1137,  1157,  1222 

V.  Belt  (7  Gill  &  J.  362)  940 

V.  Clark  (53  Md.  580)  230,  237 

V.  Glenn  (41  Ala.  571)  699,  788 

V.  Maguire  (3  Tenn.  Ch.  695)  792 

V.  Smith  (2  Gill.  &  J.  493)     422,  423,  424 

Glidden  r.  Bennett  (43  N.  H.  306)  604 

(ilines  V.  Weeks  (137  Mass.  547)  576 

Glover,  Goods  of  (5  Notes  of  Cas.  553)         63 

V.  Hill  (57  Miss.  240)  202 

V.  Holley  (2  Bradf.  291)  1129,  1145 

Goate  V.  Fryer  (3  Bro.  C.  C.  23)  786 

Goblet  V.  Beechey  (2  Russ.  &  Myl.  624)       98 

Godard  v.  AVagner  (2  Stn.bh.  Eq  1)    969.  974 

Godbold  V.  (Jodbold  (13  S.  C   601)  12.36 

Goddard's  Estate  (94  N.  Y.  544)  400 

Goddard  v.  Bolster  (6  Me.  427)  675 

V.  Brown  (12  R.  I.  31)  354 

V.  Goddard  (10  Pa.  St.  79)  9.50 

V.  Goddard  (3  Phill.  637)  519 

V.  Johnson  (14  Pick.  352)  639 


TABLE   OF    CASES. 


Ixix 


Goddard  v.  Public  Adin'r  (1  Dein.  480) 
Goddcn  t'.  Bmkc  (^5  Lii.  An.  160) 
Godfrey's  Estate  (4  Mirli.  W8) 
Godfrey  v.  Gctthell  (4(1  Mc  537) 
y. 'reini)letoii  ((I  8.  W.  R.  47) 
(Jodley  «.  Taylor  (;J  Dev.  178) 
(lodwin  V.  lloofier  (45  Ala.  (il'"{) 
Goebel  v.  Foster  (8  Mo.  A  pp.  443) 
Goeppner  v.  Leitzelmann  (!»8  111.  40!)) 


Goff  V.  Cook  (73  Ind.  351) 

V.  Kellogfr  (18  I'lek.  -i.-jG) 
Goforth  r.  Loiiirwortli  (4  Oli.  129) 
Gold's  Case  (Kirby.  100) 
Gold  V.  Ju'lson  (21  Conn.  f!H!) 
Golder  v.  Littlejohn  (30  Wis.  344) 
Goldin-  V.  Gohlin^-  (24  Ahi.  122) 
Gohtsniitirs  K.state  (13  riiila.  387) 
Gollanfs  Suctession  (31  La.  An.  173) 


I'liKO 

400 

3!) 

102(> 
(104 
831 

10(i(i 
574 

]25(J 
102!l, 

1032 

423 

854 

3.30,  1047 

(i(i7 

888,  88i) 

1120 
022 

12:iO 

lliiti 


Goinbault  v.  Public  Adui'r  (4  Bradf.  226)  37, 

52 

Gonzales  v.  Barton  (45  Tnd.  295)  900 

Good  I'.  Martin  (2  Col.  218)  8  i3 

r.  Norley  (28  Iowa,  188)  1030,  10  i4 

(ioodale  V.  Moon-v  (GO  N.  H.  528)     925,  92:) 

Goodall  r.  Boardnian  (53  Vt.  92)  199 

r.  iMcLean  (2  Bradf.  306)  937 

K.  Marshall  (11  N.  H.  88)  360,  374 

/■.  Tucker  (13  How.  U.  S.  469)     360,  676 

Goodhear  c.  Gary  (1  La.  An.  240)       690,  H91 

Goodbody  V.  Goodbodv  (95  III.  456)  329.  1089 

Goodburn  v.  Stevens  (1  Md.  Ch.  420)  284,290 

Goodhue  v.  Clark  (37  N.  H.  525)  8  i2 

Goodlett  y.  Anderson  (7  Lea,  286)  441 

Goodman's  Trust  (Law  U.  17  Ch.  D.  266)  157 

4ti6 
494 
146 
2.2 
782 
809 
604 
440 
1142 
518 
99 


Goodman  v.  Kuss  (14  Conn.  210) 

V.  Wniter  (64  Ala.  410) 
Goodrich  v.  Adams  (138  Mass.  552) 

V.  Brown  (63  Iowa,  247) 

r.  Conrad  (24  (owa,  254) 

r.  Fritz  (9  Ark.  440) 

V.  Jones  (2  Hill,  142) 

V.  Pendleton  (4  .John.  Ch.  549) 

V.  Thompson  (4  Dav,  215) 

V.  Treat  (3  Col.  408) 
Goodright  v.  Glazier  (4  Burr.  2512) 

Goods  of  .     For  cases  under  "Goods 

of.'  see  the  names  of  the  parties. 
Goodsell's  Appeal  (55  Conn.  171) 
Goodwin  V.  Colby  (13  Atl.  866) 

V.  Goodwm  (3.3  Conn.  314) 

V.  Goodwin  (48  Ind.  584) 

V.  .lones  (3  Mass.  514) 

V.  Mdton  (25  X.  H.  4.58) 

V.  Moore  (4  Humph.  221) 
Goodwyn  ?'.  Hightower  (30  Ga.  249) 
G"odvear  v.  Hulbhen  (3  Fish.  Pat.  Cas. 

251) 
Gookiii  V.  Sanborn  (3  N.  H.  491) 
Gordon  v.  'Mark  (10  Fla.  179) 

V.  Gibbs  (3  Sm.  &  M.  473) 

V.  Gilfod  (94  U.  S.  168) 

V.  Gordon  (55  N.  H.  399) 

V.  Goule  (30  La.  An.  1-38) 

r.  Justices  (1  Munf.  1) 

r.  Lord  Heav  (5  Sim.  274) 

V  McEachiii  (57  Miss.  834) 

r.  Tweedy  (74  Ala.  232) 
r.  West  ("8  N.  H.  444) 
Gore  r.  P.razier  (3  Mass.  523) 
V.  Steyeiis  (1  Dana,  201) 


107 
939 
231 
1125 
375,  649,  673 
646 
639 
849 


367 
866 
370 
6i)7 
1271 

330, 1089 
344 
793 
101 
835 
262 
llt!3 

4Q5,  1025 
935 


Goree  v.  Walthall  (44  Ala.  161) 
Gorham  v.  Daniels  (23  Vt.  600) 

V.  Dodge  (122  111.  528) 
Gorton  v.  Gregory  (3  B.  &  S.  90) 
Gosling  i".  Carter  (1  Colly.  644) 
Goss  V.  Greenaway  (70  Ga.  130) 


611 

254 
1016 
793 
716 
188 


Gossage   v.  Crown   Point    Co.  (14  Nev. 

153)  712,  713 

Gottsberger  v.  Taylor  (19  N.  Y.  1.50)  391 

Ciotzian.In  re  (34"  Minn    159)  268.  985 

(ioudy  r.  Hall  (36  111.  313)  1032 

(iough  t'.  Manning  (2(i  Md.  347)  268,  963 

Goidd  r.  Crow  (57  Mo.  200)  228 

V.  .Manslield  (103  Mass.  408)  57 

V.  Safford  (39  Vt.  498)  85 

V.  Tingley  (16  N.  J.  Kq.  .501)  8.56 

r.  Whitmore  (79  Me.  383)  803 

r.  Winthrop  (5  K.  I.  319)  1105 

V.  Womack  (2  Ala.  83)  2ti4 

Gourley  v.  Linst-nbiglcr  (51  Pa.  St.  345)     120 

Govane  v.  Govane  (1  H.  &  M.  346)  517 

Gove  V.  Gather  (23  III.  6-34)  239 

Governor  o.  Hooker  (19  Fla.  1()3)      655,  774, 

842 

Graber  v.  Haaz  (2  Dem.  216)  474 

Grabill  V.  Barr  (5  Pa.  St.  441)  63 

(irady's  Estate  (14  Phila.  259)  12.58 

GradV  r.  Hughes  (31  N.  W.  K.  4-38)  1130 

V.  ]McCorkle  (57  Mo.  172)  245 

V.  Porter  (53  Cal  680)  1242 

Graeme  r.  Harris  (1  Dall.  456)  358 

Graff  I'.  Castleman  (5  Rand.  195)  693 

V.  Transportation  Co.,  18  Md.  364)      337 

Gragg.  In  re  (32  Minn.  142)  331 

c.  Gragg  (65  Mo.  343)  205 

Graham,  Goods  of  (3  Sw.  &  Tr.)  69,  97 

V.  Abercrombie  (8  Ala.  552)  1235 

V.  Davidson  (2  D.  &  B.  Eq.  155)  669 

V.  Dewitt  (3  Bradf.  186)  727 

V.  Dickinson  (3  Barb   Ch.  169)  1109 

V.  Graham  (10  Ired.  L.  219)  68 

V.  Graham  (23  W.  Va.  36)  880 

r.  Hawkins  (38  Tex.  628)  1037, 1047, 10.59 

V.  King  (.50  Mo.  22)  1051,  10.58 

r.  Law  (6  U.  C.  C.  P.  310)  226 

V.  Londonderry  (3  Atk.  393)  614 

V.  O'Fallon  (3"Mo.  507)  480,  482 

V.  O'Fallon  (4  Mo.  601)  74 

V.  Oviatt  (58  Cal.  428)  368 

V.  State  (7  Ind.  470)  748 

V.  Stewart  (68  Cal.  374)  207 

1..  Viiiing  (1  Tex.  639)  861 

r.  Vining(2Tex.4.33)  861 

V.  Whitely  (26  N.  J.  L.  254)  493 

Cranberry  v.  Cranberry  (1  Wash.  246)      700 

Granberv  r.  Mhoon  (1  Dev.  L.  456)  326 

Grande  \\  Chaves  (15  Tex.  550)  395 

Grandv  v.  Sawyer  (Pliill.  Eq.  8)  878 

Granger  v.  Bassett  (98  Mass.  462)      638.  833, 

1153,  1186 
v.  Reid  (36  La.  An.  84)  749 

Grange  Warehouse  Assoc,  v.  Owen  (7  S. 

W.  R.  457)  836 

Grant  v.  B.idwell  (78  Me.  460)646,1231,1219 
V    Hrotherton  (7  Mo.  458)  554 

r.  Edwirds  (!)2  N.  C  442)  1140 

r   Grant  (1  Sandf.  Ch.2J5)  481 

r   Hughes  (94  N.  C.  231)  1125,  1127 

V.  Reese  (94  N.  C  720)  353,360.  3«3,  669, 
748,  1164 
V.  Spann  (34  Miss.  294)  503,  i-82 


Ixx 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


Page 
Grant  v.  Tli(niH)S(.ii  (4  C-iin.  21)3)  479 

Grantliam  v.  Williams  (1  Ark.  270)    530,  531 
liraiitlaud  i\  Wite  (5  Muiif.  2U5)  lOlifi 

Granville  r.  McNeile  (7  Hare,  150)  722 

Grass  V.  Howard  (52  Me.  U)2)  1021 

Gratacap  r.  Phyfe  (1  Barb.  Ch.  485)  (i(i3 

Grattaii  «.  Appjeton  (3  Sto.  755)  117.  4!)5 

V.  Grattaii  US  111.  167)    1213,  1214.  1215, 

1217 
Gratz  V.  Bavard  (11  S.  &  R.  41)  281 

Gravely  v.  Gravelv  (25  S.  C.  1)  3R0,  37ti, 

442,  1008 

Graves  r.  Barnes  (7  La.  An.  69)  1 1^8 

V.  Cochran  (08  iMo.  74)  211,  258,  262, 1074 

V.  Dolphin  (1  Sim.  66)  956 

V.  Edwards  (32  Miss.  305)  408 

V.  Flowers  (51  Ala   402)  752 

V.  Graves  (10  B.  iMon.  31)  177 

V.  Graves  (58  N.  H.  24)  840 

V.  Howard  (3  Jones.  Eq.  302)  1109 

V.  Poage  (17  Mo.  91)  418 

r.  Spedden  (46  Md.  527)  1222 

Gravillon  p.  Richard  (13  La.  2n3)  375 

Gray's  Appeal  (116  Pa.  St.  256)  364,  371 

Gray  v.  Armistead  (6  Ired.  74)  387,  6!)3 

V.  Brignard.'llo  (1  Wall.  627)  334 

V.  Gardner  (3  Mass.  399)  1046 

»;.  Gray  (60  N.  H.  28)  500 

V.  GraV  (39  N.  .1.  Eq.  332)  576 

V.  Hawkins  (8  Oh.  St.  449)  686 

i:  Henderson  (71  Pa.  St.  368)  593 

V.  INlcCune  (23  Pa.  St.  447)  248 

V.  Mvrick  (38  N.  J.  Eq.  210)  1127 

V.  Palmer  (9  Cal.  616)  283 

V.  I'atton  (2  B.  Mon.  12)  373 

V.  Smith  (3  Watts,  289)  555 

V.  Swain  (2  Hawks,  15)  646,  651 

V.  West  (93  N.  C.  442)  1097, 1102 

Gravhill  v.  Warren  (4  Ga.  528)  1006 

GraVdon  v.  Gravdon  (23  N.  J.  Eq.  229)     963 

GraVsbrook  v.  Fox  (1  Plowd.  275)     316,  383, 

426.  585,  586 

Gravson  v.  Weddle  (63  Mo.  523)      394,  1027, 

1030,  1060,  1068 

Greathead's  Appeal  (42  Conn.  374)    254,  255, 

259 
Grebill's  Appeal  (87  Pa.  St.  105)  641 

Greelv  v.  Nashua  (62  N.  H.)  354 

Green's  Appeal  (42  Pa.  St.  25)  899 

Green,  Ex  parte  (1  .lac.  &  W.  253)  1012 

In  re  (2  DeG.  F.  &  J.  121)  790 

V.  Allen  (5  Humph.  170)  932 

V.  Armstrong   (1  Den.  550)  597 

V.  Bapti-t  Church  (27  La.  An.  563)     329 
V.  Barbee  (84  N.  C.  09)  1165,  1100 

V.  Belcher  (1  Atk.  .505)  878 

V.  Blackwell  (32  N.  .1.  Eq.  7C8)  1006 

r.  Brooks  (25  Ark.  318)  774,  808 

V.  Byrne  (40  Ark.  4.53)  745,  1182 

V.  Clark  (24  Vt.  136)  1202 

V.  Collins  (6  Ired.  139)  6-55 

V.  Creighton  (23  How.  90)  374 

V.  Cutri-rht  (Wrisht,  738)  599 

r.  Davidson  (4  Ba.\t.  488)  725 

V.  Demoss  (10  Humph.  371)  238 

V.  Green  (30  N.  J.  Eq.  451)  1006 

V.  Green  (80  N.  C.  546)  941 

V.  Hardv  (24  Me.  453)  1244 

V.  Hath'awav  (36  N.  .T.  Eq.  471)         1220 
V.  Hewitt  (97  111.  113)  729,  949 

V.  Hamberry  (2  Brock.  403)  558 


Pajre 
Green  v.  Howell  (6  W.  &  S.  203)  1216 

V  Hudson  1{.  R.  (.32  Barb.  25)  517 
V.  Mav  (75  Ala.  162)  1169 
V.  Phillips  (20  Grat.  752)  602 
V.  Probate  ,ludf;e  (40  Mich.  244)  827 

V  Rugelv  (23  Tex.539)  360,429 
?;.  Russell  (132  Mass.  536)  821 
V.  Sanders  (18  Hun,  308)  1163, 1167 
V.  Sargeant  (23  Yt.  406)  702,  1131 
V.  Sutton  (50  Mo.  ]8())  874 
V.  Thonip.soii  (26  Minn.  .500)  628 
V.  ''■ribe(L.  R.9  Ch.  D.  231)  101 
V.  Tunstall  (5  How.  Miss.  638)  1197 
V.  Virdeii  (22  Mo.  506)  299 
V.  Weever  (78  Ind.  494)  172 

Greenabaum  v.  Elliott  (60  Mo.  25)  819 

Greenbaum  v.  Austrian  (70  111.  591)  2.38 

Greene  v.  Day  (1  Dem.  45)  349 

V.  Dver  (32  Me.  400)  819 

V.  Greene  (1  Ohio,  .535)  235,  289 

V.  Holt  (70  Mo   077)  1047,  1068 

V.  Speer  (.37  Ala.  .532)  1215 

V  Wilbur  (15  R.  1.251)  1102 
Greenleaf  v.  Allen  (127  Mass  248)  622 
Greenough's  Appeal  (9  Pa.  St.  18)  782 
Greenough  v  Greeiiouyh  (11  Pa.  St.  489)  63 
Greenside  r.  Benson  (3  Atk.  248)  763,  1115 
Greentree's  Estate  (12  Phila.  10)  573 
Greenwalt  v.  McClure  (7  III.  App.  152)  1064 
Greenway  v.  Greenway  (2  DeG.  F.  &  J 


881 

1072 

45 

201 

859 

809 

Greer  v.  McBetli  (13  Rich.  L.  &  Eq.  254)  354 


128) 

Greenwell  v.  Heritage  (71  Mo.  459) 
Greenwood  v.  Cline  (7  Or.  17) 
V.  Maddox  (27  Ark.  648) 
V.  Tavlor  (1  Russ.  &  M.  185) 
V.  Woodworth  (18  Tex.  1) 


Gregg  V.  Boude  (9  Dana,  343) 
V.  Currier  (36  N.  H.  200) 
V.  Wilson  (24  Ind.  227) 

Gregory  v.  Bailev  (4  Harr.  256) 
V.  Cowgill  (i9  Mo.  415) 
V.  Ellis'  (82  N.  C.  225) 
V.  Ellis  (86  N.  C.  579) 
V.  Forrester  (1  McCord  Ch.  318) 
V.  Harrison  (4  Fl:i.  56) 
V.  Hooker  (1  Hawks,  394) 
V.  McPherson  (13  Cal.  562) 


785 

1142 

524,  579 

809 


729 
440 

195 

421 

744 

759, 760 

735,  1023, 

1035 

284 

1128 

1028 

1035 

271 

1045 

401,  1193 

841 

1038 

1244 


V.  Menefee  (83  Mo.  413) 

V.  Orr  (61  Miss.  307) 

V.  Rhoden  (24  S.  C.  90) 

V.  Taber  (19  Cal.  397) 
Greiner's  Appeal  (103  Pa.  St.  89) 
Grenawalt's  Appeal  (37  Pa.  St.  95) 
Gresharn  v.  Pyron  (17  Ga.  263) 
(irey  v.  Lewis  (79  Ky.  453) 
Grice's  Estate  (11  Phila.  107) 
Grice  V.  Randall  (23  Vt.  239) 
Grider  v.  Apperson  (38  Ark.  388)    1034,  1209 

V.  Eubanks  (12  Bush,  510)  269,  270 

V.  McClay  (11  S.  &  R.  224)  1233 

Gridley  v.  Andrews  (8  Conn.  1)  989 

f."Phillips  (6  Kan.  .349)  1068 

V.  Watson  (53  111.  186)  610 

Grier's  Appeal  (25  Pa.  St.  352)  828 

Griffie  V.  Maxie  (58  Tex.  210)  211 

Gritfin  v.  Bonliam  (9  Rich.  Eq.  71)     391,  653, 

654,  1168,  1173 

V.  Graham  (1  Hawks.  96)  930 

V.  Gritiiu  (3  Ala.  623)  1037 


TABLE   OF    CASES. 


Ixxi 


Pajte 
Grimn  v.  Griffin  (17  N.  East.  782)      832,  8:14 
V.  I'archc-r  (48  Mf.  400)  8.'.7 

V.  SanuK'l  (0  .Mc  50)  287 

V.  Warner  (48  Cal.  Wi)  1081 

GrilHlli  f.  IJeeolier  (10  Barlj.  4-32)  1142 

r.  Chew,  8  8.  &  K.  17)  ti.Vi 

V.  Coleman  (01  Md.  2.')0)  522 

V.  Diffendorffer  (50  Md.  4(!G)  47 

V.  Frazier  (8  Cr.  U)        405,  448,  449,  572. 

58(i 

V.  Godey  (113  U.  S.  89)     333,  1129,  1131 

V.  I'liilips  (9  Lea,  417)  1048,  lOllO 

V.  Railroad  (23  S.  C.  25)  591 

V.  Tovvnlev  (09  Mo.  13)  1072 

Griffiths  V.  Robins  (3  Madd.  191)  43 

Grig'-s  I'.  Clark  (23  Cal.  427)  284 

r.  Dodi^'e  (2  Dav,  28)  1001 

r.  Smith  (12  N.M.  L.  22)  238 

Grignoa  v.  Astor  (2  How.  319)   325,  32^),  337, 

1030,  1031,  1088,  108J 

Grigsbv  v.  Simpson  (28  Grat.  348)  8  i3 

r.  \ViIkins(.n  (9  Hush,  91)  1138 

Grim's  Apiital  (1  (inint  Cas.  209)  1034 

Ai)p.'al  (8J  i'a.  St.  3-33)  987 

Appeal  (105  Pa.  St,  375)      284,  2D1,  703, 

1083 

Appeal  (109  Pa.  St.  391)  918,  1242 

Grimes  v.  Booth  (19  Ark.  224)  805 

r.  Harmon  (35  Ind.  198)        873,  921,  931 

V.  Tall)crt  (14  Md.  109)  440 

V.  Wilson  (4  Biackf.  331)  25: 

Grinnell  v.  Baxter  (17  Pick.  383)  1208 

r.  Lawrence  (1  Blatch.  340)  070 

Grinstead  v.  Fonte  (32  Miss.  120)  733 

Griscom  v.  Evens  (40  N.  J.  L.  402)  812 

(irissoni  i-.  Hill  (17  Ark.  483)  92J 

Grist  r.  Hod-fs  (3  Dcv.  L.  198)  021 

Griswold  V.  Chandler  (5  N.  H .  492)    004.  079, 

6J2,  702,  761,1137,  1145 

V.  Frink  (22  Oh.  St.  579)  1070 

V.  Matiix  (21  Mo.  App.  282)  18J 

Groce  v.  Field  (13  Ga.  24)  12.59 

V.  Rittenberrv  (14  Ga  232)  81)5 

Grogan  i'.  Garrison  (27  Oh.  St.  50)  204 

Groot  V.  Hitz  (3  Mackey,  247)  11 U 

Groover  v.  Brown  (09  Ga.  60)  202 

Gross  V.  Howard  (52  Me.  192)  1038 

Grotenkeniper  r.  Brvson  (79  K}'.  353)       1096 

Groton  r.  Kiiguks  (17  Me.  137)  383 

Grout,  In  re  (15  Him,  301)  1140 

Grout  V.  Chamberlin  (4  Mass.  013)  751 

Grover  v.  Hawlev  (5  Cal.  485)  1044 

Grow  V.  D  .bhins"  (128  Mass.  271)  12!!7 

Grubbs  r.  McDonald  (91  Pa.  St.  236)  37 

Grymes  v.  Boweren  (0  Bing.  437)  005 

V.  Hone  (49  N.  Y.  17)  116,  117,  120 

Guenther  v.  BirUicht  (22  Mo.  4-39)  824 

Guerin  v.  Moore  (25  Mmn.  402)  222,  243 

Guernsey  v.  Guernsev  (30  N.  Y.  267)         949 

Guien's  Estate  (1  .Vsiim.  317)  1174 

Guier  V.  Kellv  (2  Binn.  294)  340 

(iuiid  r.  Guild  (15  Pick.  129)  824 

Guilford  r.  Love  (49  Tex.  715)  330,  1089 

r.  Maddon  (45  Ala.  2il0)  1246 

Guion  V.  Anderson  (8  Humph.  298)  277 

Guitar  r.  Gordon  (17  Mo.  408)  111 

Guldin's  Estate  (81  *  Pa.  St.  302)  533 

Gulick  V.  Gulick  (27  N.  J.  Eq.  498)  1103 

Guliedge  t'.  Berrv  (31  Miss.  346)  733 

Gnll^v  V.  P-Mtlu'V  (7  Bush.  167)  724 

Gullv  V.  Hull  (31  Miss.  20)  607 


Pane 

Gullv  V.  Rav  (18  B.  Mon.  107)  244 

Gum's  f.  Capehart  (5  .It)nes  Eq.  242)  9!)4 

Gunbv  e.  Brown  (80  Mo.  2.53)  1028 

Gunn'r.  Barrv  (44  (ia.  351)  201 

V.  Harrv'(15  Wall.  010)  201 

V.  Howell  (35  Ala.  144)  675 

(iunniug  r.  Luckman  (3  Kedf.  273)  1128 

Gunnison  v.  Twitchel  (38  N.  H.  02)  212 

Gunter  v.  Fox  (51   Tex.  383)         022,  712,  713 

V.  Janes  (9  Cal.  043)  848 

Gurley  v.  Butler  (83  Lid.  .501)  573 

(iurnJe  c.  Malonev  (38  Cal.  85)  7-57 

(Juthinan  r.  Guthman  (18  Neb.  98)      205,  215 

Guthrie's  Appeal  (37  Pa.  St.  9)  901 

Guthrie  v.  Guthrie  (17  Te.x.  541)  828 

V.  Jones  (108  Mass.  191)  604 

V.  Owen  (2  Humph.  202)  77 

V.  Price  (23  Ark.  396)  52 

V.  Wheeler  (51  Conn.  207)  707,  1159 

Gutzweiler  v.  Laeknuum  (39  Mo.  91)  593 

Guv  V.  Pierson  (21  Ind.  18)  1035,  1037 

"  V.  Siiarp  (1  Mvl.  &  K.  589)  972 

Gwin's  Will  (1   I  uck.  44)  85 

Gwin  V.  Hick^  (1  Bav,  .503)  598 

r.  Latimer  (4  Yerg.  22)  797 

Gwinu  V.  Williams  (30  Lid.  374)  1080 

(iwvnn  V.  Horsey  (4  G.  &  .1.  453)      698,  1137 

Gw  vnne  v.  Cincinnati  (3  Ohio,  24)  239 

'v.  Estes  (14  Lea,  002)  281,  288 

Gvger's  Estate  (65  Pa.  St.  311)  519,  525 


Haag  v.  Sparks  (27  Ark.  .594)  1123 

Haas  r.  Childs  (4  Dein.  137)  402 

Habergham  v.  Vincent  (2  Yes.  Jr.  204)  60 
Haberiiiann's  Appeal  (101  I'a.  St.  329)     705, 

1135 
Habershon  v.  Varden  (7  F..  L  &  Eq.  228)  907 
Hacknev  i\  Vrooman  (02  Barb.  050)  119 

Haddock  r.  Boston  &  M.  R.  K.  Co.  (146 

Mass.  155)  406 

Haden  v.  Haden  (7  J.  J.  Marsh.  168)  1213. 1242 
Hadlev  )•.  Kendrick  (10  Lea,  .525)  387,  692,  693 
Hadlock  r.  Grav  (104  Ind   .5!>0)  900 

Hafer  v.  Hafer  (33  Kaiis.  44!))  213 

V.  Hafer  (30  Kans.  524)  213 

Haffev,  In  re  (10  Mo.  App.  232)  1158 

Hairah  v.  Patterson  (10  Bush.  441)  1205 

Hageninever  r.  Hanselman  (2  Deni.  87)  908 
Hager  r.  Xixon  ((>9  N.  C.  108)  2'« 

Haggatt  r.  Wade  (10  Sm.  &  M.  143)  1005 
Hagler  v.  Rlercer  (0  Fla.  271 )  337 

Hagthorp  I'.  Hook  (1  G.  &  J.  270)     432.  704. 

1182 

Hahn  v.  Kellv  (34  Cal.  391)         325,  329,  331 

Hahnlin's  Appeal  (45  Pa.  St.  343)  800 

Haigii  V.  Haigh  (9  R.  I.  20)  311 

Haight  r.  Brisbin  (!I0  N.  Y.  1-32)  580 

v.  Brisbin  (100  N.  Y.  219)  708 

r.  (ireen  (19  Cal.  113)  621 

V.  Havt  (19  N.  Y.  404)  625 

Haigood  V.  Wells  (1  Hill  Ch.  59)  512.  582, 1254 

Haile's  Succession  (3  So.  R.  630)  1221 

Haile  V.  Hill  (13  Mo.  612)  494 

Haine's  Accounting  (8  X.  J.  Eq.  506)        1174 

Haines  r.  Haines  (2  Vern.  441)  92 

V.  People  (97  III.  101)  124!t 

V.  Price  (20  N.  J.  L.  480)  715,  1142,  1143 

Hair  V.  Averv  (28  Ala.  207)  03il 

Hairston  r.  Hairston  (2  Jones  Eq.  123)       041 

V.  Hairston  (30  Miss.  270)  90,  91,  95 


IXXll 


TABLE    OF   CASES. 


Page 

Hairston  v.  Randolphs  (12  Leigh,  445)       252 

halt  V.  llc.iile  (lU\Vi.s.  i'rl)  212 

Hake  V.  Stott  (5  L'ol.  1-tO)  575,  57(i 

llaldaiie  V.  Eclvford  (L.  K.  8  Eq.  631)         U'-i 

Haldumaii  v.  Haldeinan  (40  I'a.  St.  29)       808 

llaldeiibv  V.  Spoftorth  (1  Beav.  390)  732 

Hale  V.  ilale  (137  Mass.  1G8)      •  718 

V.  Hale  (1  (iiav,  518)  186,  191,  1200 

V.  Hale  (125  III.  399)  917 

V.  Marquette  (09  Iowa.  376)       1066,  1077 

V.  Meegaii  (39  Mo.  272)  834 

V.  Muiiii  (4  Grav,  132)  235 

V.  Pluninier  (6  Ind.  121)  290 

V.  Stone  (14  Ala.  803)  607 

Hales  V.  Holland  (92  111.  494)  340,  825 

Halev  V.  Boston  (108  Mass.  576)  901 

Halfnian  v.  Ellison  51  Ala.  543  803 

Hall,  Goods  of  (L.  K.  2  P.  &  D.  256)  62 

In  re  (2  Uem.  112)  906 

Succession  of  (28  La.  An.  57)  72 

V.  Allen  (31  Wis.  691)  480 

V.  Armor  (68  Ga.  449)  1044 

V.  Bovd  (6  Pa.  St.  267)  736,  826 

V.  Bramble  (2  Dak.  189)  067 

V.  Browder  (4  How.  Miss.  224)  600 

V.  Bumstead  (20  Pick.  2)  1207 

r.  Burgess  (5  Grav,  12)  4.32 

V.  Carter  (8  Ga.  388)  737,  739 

V.  Chaffee  (14  N.  H.  215)  915.  949 

r.  Chapman  (35  Ala.  1353)  691,  694 

V.  Gushing  (9  Pick.  395)  391,  553 

V.  Darrington  (9  Ala.  502)  736 

V.  Uavis  (3  Pick.  4,50)  1215 

17.  Uenckla  (28  Ark.  506)  800 

V.  Dougherty  (5  Houst.  435)  32 

V.  Elliot  (Peake  N.  P.  C.  8lJ)  420 

V.  Finch  (29  Wis.  278)  823,  824 

t).  Gitiings  (2H.  &  .).  112)  309 

V.  Grovier  (25  Mich.  428)   1121, 1129, 1134 

V.  Hall  (38  Ala.  131)  34 

V.  Hall  (47  Ala.  290)  469 

V.  Hall  (13  Hun,  336)  159 

V.  Hall  (18  Ga.  40)  71 

V.  Hall  (37  L.  J.  P.  40)  45 

V.  Hall  (L.  K.  1  Prob.  &  D.  481)  46 

V.  Hall  (2  McCord  Ch.  269)  269,  653, 1094 

V.  Hall  (1  Mass.  101)  1187 

V.  Hall  (123  Mass.  120)  880 

V.  Hall  (27  Miss.  458)  389,  992 

V.  Hall  (78  N.  Y.  .535)  1175 

V.  Hall  (11  Tex.  .526)  828 

V.  Hallett  (1  Cox  Ch.  134)  1085 

V.  Hancock  (15  Pick.  255)  155 

V.  Harrell  (92  Ind.  408)  254 

r.  Harris  (113  111.410)  20.5,  212 

V.  Harrison  (21  Mo.  227)  366,  673 

V.  Irwin  (7  111.  176)  719 

*.  Martin  (46  N.  H.  337)      820, 1261, 1204 

V.  Monroe  (27  Tex.  700)  576 

V.  Pearman  (20  Tex.  168)  588 

V.  Pratt  (5  Oh.  72)  789,  821 

V.  Priest  (6  Grav,  18)  878 

V.  Richardson  (22  Hun,  444)  836 

V.  Savage  (4  Ma*.  273)  249 

V.  Savre  (10  B.  Mon.  46)  1040 

V.  Sims  (2  J.  J.  Marsh.  509)  473 

V.  Superior  Court  (69  Cal.  79)  808 

V.  Thaver  (105  Mas=.  219)  527 

V.  Trvon  (1  Dem.  2!»6)  1168 

r.  Tufts  (18  Pick.  4.55)  055 

V.  Wilson  (6  Wis.  433)  856 


Page 

Hall  V.  Woodman  (49  N.  H.  295)  1026 

Halleck's  Estate  (49  Cal.  HI)  1190 

Halleck  V.  Guy  (9  Cal.  181)  1067 

f.  Mixer  (16  Cal.  574)  620,621 

V.  Moss  (17  Cal.  339)  697 

Hallett  V.  Allen  (13  Ala.  554)  994 

V.  Bassett  (100  Mass.  167)  443 

V.  Thompson  (5  Pal.  583)  .  956 

Hallev  V.  Ilanev  (3  T.  B.  Mon.  141)  532 

v.  Webster "(21  Me.  461)  479 

Hallibtirton  v.  Carson  (100  N.  C.  99)        1155 

V.  Sumner  (27  Ark.  460)  1059 

Halliday  v.  Du  Bose  (.59  Ga.  268)  533 

Hallock  V.  Rumsev  (22  Hun,  89)  536 

V.  Teller  (2  Dem.  206)  823 

Halsev's  Estate  (93  N.  Y.  48)  1198 

Halsey  v.  Patterson  (37  N.  J.  Eq.  445)       906 

V.  Van  Amringe  (4  Pai.  279)  1202 

V.  Van  Amringe  (6  Pai.  12)  1164 

Halstead  v.  Westervell  (41  N.J.  Eq.  100)  10i;8 

Halvburton  v.  Di.bsou  (65  N.  C.  88)  830 

Ham  V.  Henderson  (.50  <  al.  367)  643 

V.  Kornegav  (85  N.  C.  118)        749,  1230 

Haniaker's  Estate  (5  Watts,  204)  1183 

Hamberlin  v.  Terry  (1  Sni.  &  M.  Ch.  589)  331, 

572 
Hamblett  v.  Hamblett  (6  N.  H.  332)  41,  501 
Haniblin  v.  Hook  (6  La.  73)  803 

Hambrooke  v.  Simmons  (4   Russ.  C.  C. 

25)  118 

Hamden  v.  Rice  (24  Conn.  350)  928 

Hamer  v.  Hamer  (4  .Strobh.  Eq.  124)        1214 

Hamerslev  v.  Lambert  (2  John.  Ch.  508)   287 

V.  Lockman  (2  Dem.  524)  92,  490 

V.  Smith  (4  Whart.  120)  608 

Hamilton's  Estate  (34  Cal.  464)    395,  397.  428 

p:state  (66  Cal.  576)  183 

Succession  (35  La.  An  640)  958 

Hamilton  v.  Clarke  (3  Mackev,  428)  718,  719 

V.  Flinn  (21  Tex.  713)      "  885,  886 

V.  Hamikon  (10  R.  I.  538)  38 

V.  Eockhart  (41  Miss.  460)  1046 

V.  Porter  (63  Pa.  St.  332)  1098 

r.  Wilson  (4  John.  721  621 

Hamlin  ».  Mebane  (1  Jones  Eq   18)  1247 

r.  Osgood  (1  Redf.  409)  903 

v.  Stevenson  (4  Dana,  597)  25 

v.  U    S.  Express  Co.  (107  111   443)      949 

Hainniett  v.  Starkweather  (47  Conn   439)  803 

Haiumon  v.  Huntlev  (4  Cow   493)  736 

Hammond  v.  Hammond  (2  Bl.  Ch  306)    994, 

1123 

V.  Hammond  (55  Md.  575)  891,  952 

V.  Inloes  (4  Md.  138)  307 

r.  Putnam  (110  Mass.  232)  726 

V.  Wood  (15  R.  I.  566)  505,  507 

Hammonds,  Goods  of  (3  Sw.  &  Tr  90)        69 

Hammons  v.  Renfrew  (84  Mo.  332)     611,  815 

Hamner  r.  Hamner  (3  Head,  398)  822 

Hampden  v.  Harder  (88  N.  C.  5!)2)  477 

Hampstead  v.  Plaistow  (49  N    IE  84)  224 

Hampton  v.  Phvsick  (24  Ark.  501)  189 

Hanbesl's  .\ppeal  (92  Pa.  St.  482)  710 

Hance  v.  McKnight  (11  N.  J.  L.  385)  703 

Hancock's  Appeal  (112  Pa.  St.  532)  871 

Hancock  v.  American  L.  I.  Co.  (62  Mo. 

26)  445 

V.  Hubbard  (19  Pick.  167)  150,  1238 

V.  Minot  (8  Pick   2;))  1103 

V.  Podmore  (1  B.  &  Ad.  260)  763 

Hancocke  v.  Prowd  (1  Saund.  328)     787,  793 


TABLE   OF   CASES. 


Ixxiii 


Pase 
Hand  r.  Marcv  (28  N.  J.  Eq.  59)  UM 

V.  M..lttr"(7-i  ^I"-  •!•'')  10-13.  1"+'' 

Ilaiulbcrrv  v.  UooliitU;  (:i8  111.  2{)'2)  8;)(i 

llaiidlev  I'.  Fitzluit,di  (;i  A.  K.  Marsh.  5G1)  71)7 
V.  VVrightsou  (tlO  Md.  11)8)  t)04 

Handy  v.  Collins  (60  iMd.  229)       1164,  1105, 

1108,1174 

Hanger  v.  Abbott  (6  AVall.  532)  847 

Hanifan  v.  Needk's  (1(18  111.  403)         574,  .578 

Hankins  v.  Kimball  (57  hid.  42)        640,  1 142 

1'.  Lavne  (48  -Vrk.  544)  1122,  112:! 

Hanks  0.  Crosbv  (04  Tex.  48.'!)  214 

Hanna's  Appeal  (31  I'a.  St.  .53)  1103 

Hanna  v.  I'almer  (0  Ci.l.  150)  221,  272 

V.  Wrav  (77  I'a.  St.  27)  283 

llaniiali  v.  I'eak  (2  .\.  K.  Marsh.  133)       488 

V.  llailroad  Co.  (87  N.  C.  351)  62 i 

Hanner  v.  Moulton  (23  Fed.  Kep.  5)   892,  8U4 

HanninKton   v.  True  (L.  R.   33  Ch.  D. 

11)5)  1111 

Uannum  i'.  Curtis  (13  Ind.  206)  808 

V.  Day  (105  Mass.  33}         546,  735,  1023, 

1024,  1040 

V.  Spear  (2  Dall.  291)  1045 

Hansbrough  v.  Hooe  (12  Leigh,  316)  978 

Hansen  v.  Forbes  (33  Miss.  42)  850 

r.  Greirg  (7  Tex.  223)  800 

lIansfo;d  r.Elliott  (9  Leigh,  79)         414,  421 

Hanson  V.  Hanson  (70  Me.  5U8)  1 103 

Hapgood  V.  Houghton  (10  Pick.  154)  759,700, 

793 

V.  Houghton  (22  Pick.  480)  639,  960 

r.  Jennison  (2  Vt.  294)  1144 

Happy's  Will  (4  Bibb,  553)  480 

Haraden  v.  Larraboe  (113  Mass.  430)  156,905 

Harbison  i,-.  James  (90  Mo.  411)  948 

Harcum  c.  Hudnall  (14  Grat.  309)       727,  728 

Hard  V.  Tunuire  (30  N.  J.  Ya\.  121)  941 

Hardawav  v.  Parham  (27  Miss.  103)    574,581 

Harden  v.  Haves  (9  Pa.  St.  151)  38,  39 

Hardenburg  v.  Blair  (30  N.  J.  Eq.  645)      ToO 

Hardin  v.  Pulley  (79  Ala.  381)  177 

Hardin  v.  Smitli  (7  B.  Mon.  390)  042 

Harding  v.  Alden  (9  Me.  140)  228 

V.  Le  Moyne  (114  111.65)  715, 10-30, 1033, 

1035 

V.  Presbyterian  Church  (20  lud.  71)     274 

V  Smith  (11  Pick.  478)  8.50 

Hardinge,  Goods  of  (2  Curt.  640)  531 

Hardwick's  Estate  (.59  Cal.  292)  214 

Hardv  i'.  Ames  (47  Barb.  413)  841 

V.  Harbin  (4  Sawy.  hm)  443 

V.  Hardv  (26  Ala.  524)  498 

V.  Merrill  (.56  N.  H.  227)  41 

V.  Miles  (91  N.  C.  131)  748 

V.  Overman  (30  Ind.  549)  287 

V.  Thomas  (23  Miss.  544)  525 

Hareeourt  v.  Bishop  (Cro.  I'.liz.  497)  336 

Hargrove  v.  Lillv  (09  Ga.  326)  773 

Harker  v.  Clark  (57  Cal.  245)  623 

V.  Irick  (10  N.  J.  Eq.  209)  1140 

V.  Kielly  (4  Del.  Ch.  72)  944,  988 

Harkins's  Succession  (2  La.  An.  829)  810 

Harkness  v.  Bailev  (Prec.  Ch.  5i4)  103 

V.  Sears  (20  Ala.  493)  601 

Harlan's  Estate  (24  Cal.  182)  439 

Harleston  v.  Corbett  (12  Kich.  604)  70 

Harlev  v.  Harlev  (57  Md.  340)  1214 

Harlin  v.  Stevenson  (30  Inwa,  .371)  1 124 

Harlow  V.  Harlow  (65  Me.  448)  12-54 

H.rman  v.  Harman  (2  Show.  492)  769 


Page 

Harman  v.  Ferrall  (04  N.  C.  474)  159 

Harmon  v.  Bviiuui  (40  Tex.  324)   185,204,  2i)8 

V.  Harmon  (03  111  512)  631 

Harness  v.  Green  (20  Mo.  310)  777 

V.  Harness  (49  Ind.  384)  1223 

Ilariiev  i-.  Dutclier  (15  Mo.  89)  745,  1183 

f.'Seott  (28  Mo.  333)  1205 

Ilarpending  v.  Wvlie  (13  Bush,  158)  210 

Harper's  Appeal  ('l  1 1  Pa.  St.  243)  980 

Harper  v.  Archer  (28  Miss.  212)  048 

V.  Butler  (2  Pet.  231))  367,  387 

r.  Harper  (92  N.  C.  -300)  1218,  1223 

V.  Harper  (1  Th.  &  C.351)  476 

V.  Lamping  (.33  Cal.  041)  2.)  I 

V.  McVeigh  (82  Va.  751)  834 

V.  Phelps  (21  Conn.  257)  905 

r.  Smith  (!)  Ga.  401)  31)3 

V.  Strutz  (53  Cal.  055)  713 

Harrell  v.  Daveni)ort  (5  .lones  Eq.  4)        1006 

V.  Hamilton  (0  (ia.  37)  405 

Harriet  r.  Swan  (18  Ark.  495)  1247 

Ilarriman  v.  Grav  (49  Me.  537)  253 

Harriiig  v.  Allou"(25  Mich.  .505)  490,  491 

Harrington  (-.Brown  (5  Pick.  519)  703 

V.  Keteltas  (92  N.  Y.  40)      077,  679,  1158 

V.  La  Kocque  (13  Or.  344)  345 

I'.  i;icli(0  Vt.  VM\)  811 

V.  Samples  (.30  Minn.  200)  831,  834 

(•   Steer  (82  111    .50)  82 

Harris's  Estate  (74  Pa.  St.  452)  005 

Petition  (14  II.  I.  037)  1052 

Harris,  Matter  of  (4  Dem.  403)  1171 

V.  .Anderson  (9  Humph.  779)  41)4 

V.  Bank    of    Jacksonville    (22    Fla. 

.501)  830,  834 

V.  Burton  (4  Harr.  CO)  249 

V.  Clark  (3  N.  Y.  93)  121 

V.  Davis  (1  Coll.  416)  881 

«.  Dillard(31  Ala.  191)  576 

V.  Douglas  (64  III.  466)  816,  1095 

V.  Ely  (25  N.  Y.  1.38)  1120 

1-.  FIv- (7  Paige,421)  1097 

V.  Fo'ster  (6  Ark.  388)  11.53 

V.  Harris  (.30  Barb   88)  481 

1-.  Harris  (01  Ind. -117)  493 

I'.  Haves  (53  Mo.  90)  37,  477 

V.  Hutcheson  (3  South.  R.  34)  818 

V.  Knapp  (21  Pick.  412)  1000 

V.  Lester  (80  111.  307)  1047 

V.  Martin  (9  Ala.  895)  1169 

V.  Milburn  (2  Ilagg.  02)  407 

V.  Parker  (41  Ala.  004)  051,  691,  695,  1146 
V.  Potts  (3  Yeates,  141)  950 

V.  Rice  (60  Ind.  207)  842 

V.  Seals  (29  Ga.  585)  578 

V.  Tisereau  (52  Ga.  153)  470 

Harrison's  Appeal  (48  Conn.  202)         51,  484 
Will  (1  B.  :Mon,  351)  47 

Harrison  v.  Burgess  (1  Hawks.  384)  79 

V.  Eldridge  (7  N.  J.  L.  392)  246 

V.  Harrison  (9  Ala.  470)  351,  1229.  1231 
V.  Henderson  (7  Heisk.315)  72.5,787,780 
V.  McJIahon  (1  Bradf.  283)  508 

V.  Moselev  (31  Tex.  608)  023 

V.  Rowan"(3  Wash.  C.  C.  580)  32,  42.  43, 

52,  479 

r.  Rowlev  (4  Ves.  212)  418 

V.  Turbeville  (2  Humph.  242)  549 

r.  White  (38  :Miss.  178)  11-55 

Harshman  r.  Slonaker  (53  Iowa,  467)  104 

Hart  V.  Anger  (38  La.  An.  341)  282 


Ixxiv 


TABLE   OF   CASES. 


Page 
Hart  V.  Bostwick  (U  Fla.  162)  508 

r.  Dunbar  (4  Sm.  &  M.  273)       263,  1074 
r.  Hurt  (70  Ga.  704)  111 

r.  Hart  (;J9  Miss.  221)  704 

V.  Hart  (41  JNio.  441)  824 

V.  Hoss  (22  [.».  All.  517)  •i5o 

V.  Jewett  (11  Iowa,  270)  803,  800 

V.  Lopan  (40  Mo.  47)  2:)0 

V.  McColluni  (28  Ga.  478)  220,  241 

V.  IMarks(4  Brad.  101)  803 

V.  Smith  (20  Fla.  58)  513,  741,  743 

V.  Soward  (12  B.  Moii.  391)  517 

V.  Ten  Evck  (2  John.  Cli.  02)  GOl 

V.  Thompson  (3  B.  Moii.  482)  049 

V.  Tulk  (2  DeG.  M.  &  G.  300)  881 

V.  Williams  (77  N.  C.  426)  1007 

Barter  v.  Tapgart  (14  Oil.  St.  122)  812 

Hartford  K.  K.  Co.  v.  Andrews  (36  Conn. 

213)  630 

Hartley  v.  Croze  (37  N.  W.  R.  449)  1052 

Haitman  v.  Dowdel  (1  Rawle,  279)  640 

V.  JIunch  (21  Minn.  107)  201 

V.  Schultz  (101  III.  437)  215,  1077 

HartTiett  v.  Fegan  (3  Mo.  App.  1)     715,  1142 

V.  Wandell  (60  N.  Y.  346)  383,  503 

Hartsiield  v.  Harvoley  (71  Ala.  231)   196,  199 

Hartzell  v.  Commonwealth  (42   Pa.  St. 

453)  553 

Harvard  v.  Amorv  (9  Pick.  446)  710 

Harvard  College  'v.  Quinn  (3  Kedf.  514)     987 

Harvev,  Matter  of  (3  Redf.  214)  525 

f. "Chouteau  (14  Mo.  587)  86 

V.  Harvev  (25  S.  C.  283)  308 

V.  Harve'v  (2  Stra.  1141)  601 

V.  McUoiniell  (48  Hun,  409)  631 

V.  Richards  (1  Mas.  381)        360,  375,  377 

V.  SkiUman  (22  Wend.  571)  802 

V.  Sullens  (46  Mo.  147)  44,  49 

t;.  Wait  (lOOreg.  117)  1190 

Harviil  v.  Logan  (9  Dana,  185)  233 

Harward  v.  Robinson  (14  III.  App   560)      704 

Harwood  v.  Andrews  (71  Ga.  784)       421,  828 

V.  Goodright  (1  Cowp.  87)  99 

V.  Marve'(8  Cal.  580)  431,  712 

Hasbrouck\'.  Hasbrouck  (27  N.  Y.  182)     697 

Hascall  v.  Cox  (49  Mich.  435)  872,  902 

Haselden  v.  Whitesides  (2  Strohh.  353)      411 

Haselwood  v.  Webster  (82  Ky.  409)  983 

Hascnritter  ?•.  Hasenritter  (77  Mo.  162)      172 

Haskell  r.  Bowen  (44  Vt.  579)  643 

V.  Farrar  (56  Mo.  497)  548 

HaskiU  V.  Sevier  (25  Ark.  152)  860 

Haskin  v.  Teller  (3  Redf.  316)  1236 

Haskins  v.  Hawkes  (108  Mass.  379)   416,  595 

V.  Spiller  (1  Dana,  170)  1240 

V.  Tate  (25  Pa.  St.  249)  896 

Haslage  v.  Krugh  (25  Pa.  St.  97)       636,  1142 

Haslei-  v.  Hasler  (1  Bradf.  248)  761 

Haslett  V.  Glenn  (7  H.  &  J.  17)  600 

Hasluck  V.  Pedlev  (L.  R.  19  Eq.  271)         886 

Hassev  v.  Keller"(l  Dem.  -577)  579 

Hastings,  In  re  (20  L.  T.  R.  n.  s.  715)       101 

V.  Clifford  (32  Me.  132)  268 

V.  Crunkleton  (3  Yeates,  261 )  230 

V.  Dickinson  (7  Mass.  153)  265 

V.  Meyer  (21  Mo.  519)  162,  177,  178 

231.  432 

V.  Rider  (99  Mass.  622)  478.  479 

Hastv  V.  Johnson  (3  Me.  282)  1046,  1048 

Hatch  V.  Atkinson  (.56  Me.  324)  116,  123 

V.  Bassett  (52  N.  Y.  359)  1102 


Pape 

Hatch  V.  Hatch  (21  Vt.  450)  1-17 

V.  Kelly  (63  N.  H.  29)  1028 

V.  Proctor  (102  Mass.  351)  385,  420 

V.  Sigman  (1  Dem.  519)  481 

V.  Straight  (3  Conn.  31)  1218 

Hatcher  v.  Clifton  (33  Ala.  301)  694 

V.  Millard  (2  Coldw.  30)  82 

r.  Robertson  (4  Strobh.  Kq.  179)  935 

HatHeld  r.  Sneden  (54  N.  Y.  280)  232 

r.  Thorpe  (5  B.  &  Aid.  589)  75 

Hathawav's  Appeal  (46  Mich.  326)  472 

Wiir(4  Oh.  St.  383)  469 

Hathaway  v.  Hathaway  (44  Vt.  658)  208 

V.  Hathaway  (46  Vt.  234)  208 

V.  Weeks  (34  Mich.  237)  435 

Hathewav's  Appeal  (52  Mich.  112)  854 

Hathorn  'v.  Eaton  (70  Me.  219)  384,  409, 

410,  411,  599 

V.  King  (8  Mass.  371)  480 

HathornthWaite  v.  Russell  (2  Atk.  126)      509 

Ilatorff  i:  Wellford  (27  Giat.  350)  199 

Hattatt  V.  Hattatt  (4  Hagg.  211)  62 

Hauensteins  v.  Lynhani  (28  Grat.  62)  308 

Haus  V.  Palmer  (21  Pa.  St.  296)  75,  83 

Hause  v.  Haiise  (57  Ala.  262)  259 

Hauser  v.  Lehman  (2  Ired.  Kq.  594)  738 

Hauteau's  Succession  (32  La.  An.  54)       1051 

Havaid  v.  Dayis  (2  Binn  400)  80,  98,  112,  481 

Havelick  v.  Havelick  (18  Iowa.  414)  499 

Haven  v.  Foster  (14  Pick.  534)  86,  114 

V.  Hilliard  (23  Pick.  10)  72 

Havens  v.  Havens  (1  Sandf.  Ch.  321)        974 

V.  Sherman  (42  Barb.  630)  1031 

V.  Thompson  (26  N.  J,  Eq.  383)  1220 

V.  Van  den  Burgh  (1  Denio,  27)  106 

V.  Sackett  (15  N.  Y.  .365)  1016 

V.  Sherman  (42  Barb.  636)  1034 

Haverhill  v.  Cronin  (4  Allen.  141)       856,  859 

Haverstick's  Appeal  (103  Pa.  St.  394)         901 

Haverstick  v.  Trudel  (51  Cal.  431)  346 

Hawarden  v.  Dunlop  (2  Sw.  &  Tr.  614)     407 

Hawes  v.  Humphrey  (9  Pick.  3.50)       103,  485 

Hawk  V.  Geddis  (10  Serg.  &  R.  23)  1065 

Hawkins  v.  Blewitt  (2  Esp  603)  123 

V.  Cunningham  (67  Mo.  415)   1164,  1106, 

1173 

V  Day  (1  Amb.  160)  790 
V.  Hawkins  (54  Iowa,  443)  75 
r.  Hewitt  (56  Vt.  430)                            7.30 

V  .Johnson  (4  Blackf.  21)  415,  1044 
V.  Robinson  (3  T  B.  Mon.  143)  532 
V.  Skeggs  (10  Humph   31 )                    963 

Hawlev   Matter  of  (.36  Hun,  258)  332 

In"  re  (100  N    Y   206)  1130,11.32 

Matter  of  (104  N.  Y.  250)     332.  346,  504 

V.  Botsford  (27  Conn.  80)  858,  1271 

V.  Brown  (1  Root,  494)  70 

V.  .James  (5  Pai.  318)     2-35.  236,  271,  728 

V.  Northampton  (8  Mass.  3)  878 

V.  Singer  (3  Dem.  589)  1145,  1140 

Hawman  v.  Thomas  (44  Md.  30)  891 

Haworth's  Appeal  (105  Pa.  St.  362)  1098 

Hawpe  V.  Smith  (*25  Tex.  448)  1077 

Haxall  V.  Lee  (2  Leigh,  207)  522 

Havdel  v.  Hurck  (72  Mo.  253)  878,  1101 

HaVden  v.  Burch  (9  Gill,  79)  1213 

Ha"\'dock  V.  Haydock  (33  N.  J.  Kq.  494)      47 

HaVdon  v.  Roi^e  (L.  R.  10  Eq.  224)  881 

Ha"yes,  Kx  parte  (88  Ind.  1)  326 

'  Goods  of  (2  Curt.  3.^8)  85 

V.  Collier  (47  Ala.  726)  527 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


Ixxv 


Hayes  i-   Haves  (7o  Ind   305)  522,  ]2i);J 

V  Havfi  (48  N.  11.  21!))  3-12 
,:.  Lifiiiokkeii  (48  Wis.  50!t)  41i4 

Havinore  v.  i  ^immissioiiers  (85  N.  C.  2G8)   84f; 

Uayues  c   Bourn  (42  Vt.  G8G)  270 

V.  Colviii  (lU  Oil.  3'.)2)  1207 

V  Harris  (33  Iowa,  510)  431 
V.  Matthews  (1  Sw  &  Tr.  4G0)  522 
V.  Meeks(10(,'al.  110)                             583 

V  Meeks  (20  Cal  288)  330,  10!)0 
V.  Semmes  (3!)  Ark.  3',)!))  505 
V.  Swaiiii  (0  Heisk.  .500)                        1002 

Haviiie  V.  Dukeiis  (08  III    207)  271 

Havs  V.  Bumnf;toii  (2  liid  30;))  173 

'v.  Cecil  (10  Lea.  100)  376.  377 

V.  Cockrell  (41  Ala.  75)  350,  1128 

V.  Harden  (0  I'a.  St.  409)  04 

V.  Ilelihanl  (3  Hedf,  28)  978 

V.  Jaekson  (6  Mass    149)  393 

V.  Miles  (9  Gill  &  J.  193)  1071 

V.  Worshani  (9  Lea,  591)  1082 

Havt  r.  Barks  (39  Conn.  357)  612 

Havward  e.  llavward  (20  Biek.  517)  639 

'v.  Blace  (4"l)ein.  487)  394 

ILivwood  r,  Mavwood  (80  N.  C.  42)         1021 

Hazard  v.  Duraiit  { 14  U.  L  25)  1139 

j;.  EiiKs  (14  U.  L5)  1149 

Hazen  v.  DuiTin-  (2  N.  J   Eq.  133)  1133 

Hazlett  P.  Bui-'^i^  (22  Iowa.  532)        1132,  11-33 

Head's  Siiecession  (28  La.  An.  800)  578 

Head  i'.  Bridi^es  (07  Ga.  227)  .584 

r.  Snttoii  (31  Kan.  010)  1142 

Headlee  v   Cloud  (51  INIo.  301)     301,  397,  3'.!8 

Headley  v.  Kirbv  (18  Ba.  St.  326)     116,  118, 

129 
1077 
968,  998, 
999,  1000 
196,  2ii8 
1155 
1009 
856 
9!tl 


Headrick  v  Youiit  (22  Kan.  344) 
Healey  u.  Toppaii  (45  N.  H.  243) 


Heard  r.  Downer  (47  Ga.  629) 

V.  Drake  (4  Grav,  514) 

Hearle  v.  Greenbank  (3  Atk.  695) 

Hearn  v   Roberts  (9  Lea,  305) 

Hearne  v.  Kev'an  (2  Ired.  Eq.  34) 

Heater  v.  Van  Auken  (14  N.  J.  Eq.  159)    898 

Heath's  Estate  (58  Iowa,  36)  1125,  11'>1 

Heath  v.  Alliii  (1  A.  K.  Marsh.  442)  738 

V.  Beik  (12  S.  C.  582)  779 

V.  Bishop  (4  Rich.  Eq.  46)  957 

V.  Garrett  (40  Tex.  23)  ^^09 

V   Lavne  (02  Tex.  686)  1031,  1055 

V.  Waters  (40  Mich.  457)  284 

V.  Wells  (5  Bick.  140)  1026,  10.39 

V.  White  (5  Conn.  228)  157 

Heaheringtou  v.  Lewenberg   (61   Miss. 

372)  989 

Hea\  enridtce  r.  Nelson  (.50  Ind.  90)  270 

Hebb  V.  Hebb  (5  Gill,  506)  1197 

Hebden's  Will  (20  N.  J.  Eq.  473)  84 

H-bcrt's  Succession  (33  La.  An.  1099)  564 
Hebert  v.  .lackson  (28  La.  An.  377)  577 

Heck  V.  Clippenger  (5  Ba.  St.  385)  906 

V,  Heck  (34  Oh.  St.  309)  189 

Heckert's  Appeal  (13  S.  &  R.  48)  1199 

Hector  v.  Knox  (63  Tex.  013)  204 

Hedderich  v   Smith  (103  Ind.  203)  600 

Heddins;  Church,  Matter  of  (35  Hun.  313)  346 
Hedenbers?  r.  Hedenbersj  (46  Conn.  30)  303 
Hedo-epetii  r.  Rose  (95  N.  C.  41 )  1220 

Hedi-es  ;•.  Hedijes  (Brec.  Ch.  209)  117 

V.  Norris  (.32  N..I.  Eq.  193)  991,  1247 

Heed  v.  Ford  (16  B.  M  n.  114)  236 


Hecrmans  v.  Robertson  (04  N.  Y.  332)      1090 
lletilelinger  v.  Georf;e  (14  Tex.  56J)  1131 

Heuanys  Appeal  (75  Ba.  St.  503)     485,  -502. 

J  038 
HcKcrich  V.  Keddie  (99  N.  Y.  258)  628 

Ileidlebaugh  v.  Wagner  (72  Iowa.  GOl)       873 
Heiliiiaii  V.  .Jones  (5  Redf.  398)  499 

Ilci>e  V.  Heise  (31  I'a.  St.  246)  9G 

lleisler  i\  Knife  (1  Browne,  ;U9)  826 

Ileiss  V.  Miirphv  (40  Wis.  276)  932 

lleister's  Appeal  (7  I'a.  St.  455)  1148 

lleitkanip   v.    Biedensteiii   (3   Mo.    App. 

4.0)  1051,  1127,  1133 

Ikizer  V.  Heizer  (71  Ind.  526)  638 

Heller's  Appeal  (116  Ba.  St.  534)  275 

Heller  v.  Leisse  (13  Mo.  App.  1^0)  189 

Hellerman's  App<  al  (115  Ba.  St.  120)  880 

Hellmanii  v.  Welleukamp  (71  Mo.  407)     651, 

674 

Helm  V.  Helm  (30  Grat.  404)  200 

V.  Rookesby  (1  Met.  Ky.  49)  492 

Helme  v.  Sanders  (3  Hawks,  563)      363,  494, 

673 
Helms  V.  Love  (41  Ind.  210)  1030,  1075 

Helphenstein  v.  Meredith  (84  Ind.  1)  242 

Hel\-ar  v.  Helvar  (1  Cas.  Temp.  Lee,  472)  98. 

107,  484 

Hemenwav  v.  Gates  (5  Bick.  321)  845 

Hemiup,  in  re  (2  Bai.  316)  1002 

Hemmeiiway  v.  Lynde  (79  Me.  2^9)  5;t5 

Ilemniiiig  r.  Gurrej'  (2  Sim.  iS:  Stu.  311)     971 

Hemphill  r.  Lewis  (7  Bush,  214)  774 

V.  Moodv  (64  Ala.  408)  992 

Hemlershot  'v.  Shields  (42  N.  J.  Eq.  317)    873 

Henderson  v.  Avers  (23  Tex.  90)  787 

V.  Blackburn  (104  111.  227)  729,  730 

V.  Buston  (3  Ired.  Eq.  359)  1009 

r.  Clarke  (4  Litt.  277)  360,  536 

V.  Clarke  (27  JIiss.  436)  1241 

V.  Henderson  (1  .Jones  L.  221)  902 

t'.  Henderson  (04  Md    185)  901 

V.  Henderson  (21  Mo.  379)  1254 

V.  lisle V  (11  Sm.  &  M  9)  807,  844 

V.  Renfro  (31  Ala.  101)  1207 

V.  Sherman  (47  Mich.  207)  154 

V.  Simmons  (33  Ala.  291)         1141.  1145, 

1149,  1151 

V.  Whitinger  (56  Ind.  131)  1074 

r.  Winchester  (31  Miss.  290)  12-^5 

Hendren  v.  Colgin  (4  Munf.  231)        518,  525, 

535,  642 

Hendrick  v.  Cleaveland  (2  Vt   329)  324 

V.  Mayfield  (74  N.  C.  626)  1248 

Hendricks"  v.  Huddlestou  (5  Sm.  &  M. 

422)  332 

r.  Keesee  (32  Ark.  714)  1268,1271 

V.  Biigh  (.57  Miss.  157)  1032 

V.  Snodgrass  (Walk.  86)  3!t4 

V.  Thornton  (45  Ala.  2119)  740 

Hendrickson  v.  Hendrickson  (41  N.  J.  Eq. 

375)  1043 

Hendrix».  Hendrix  (46Tex.  6)  199 

r.  Seaborn  (25  S.  C.  481)  212 

Henfrev  r.  Henfrev  (4  Moo.  B.  C.  29)        504 

Hengst's  Appeal  (24  Ba.  St.  413)  738 

Appeal  (6  Watts.  86)  1222 

Henry's  Estate  (65  Wis  551)  191 

Succession  (31  La.  An.  5.55)  400 

Henry  v.  Estev  (13  Grnv,  .336)  1195 

V.  Henrv  (81  Kv.  342)  893 

V.  Keays  (12  La.  214)  346 


Ixxvi 


TABLE   OF    CASES. 


Henry  v.  McKerlie  (78  Mo.  416)    1059,  1060, 

1067,  1089,  1198 

r.  State  (9  Mo.  778)  559,  r2;il 

Heiirv  Co.  v.  Winnebago  (52  111.  454)        9;51 

Henschel  v.  Maurer  (34  N.  W.  926)  117 

Henshaw  v.  Blood  (1  Ma-ss.  35)  665 

V.  Miller  (17  How.  212)  618,  625 

Henslev  v.  Dodge  (7  Mo.  479)  566 

Hensloe's  Case  (9  Co.  37)  314,  316,  409 

Hepburn's  Appeal  (65  Pa.  St.  468)  608 

Hepburn  v.  Hepburn  (2  Bradf.  74)     679,  1002 

Herald  v.  Harper  (8  Bhickf.  170)  733 

Herbert  v.  Berrier  (81  Ind.  1)  65 

V.  Wren  (7  Cranch,  370)      239,  258,  267, 

500 

Herlakenden's  Case  (4  Co.  62  a)  5!t7 

Heron's  Estate  (G  Phiia.  87)  516,  525 

Heron  v.  Heron  (2  Atk.  171)  986 

Herr's  Appeal  (5  W.  &  S.  494)  612 

Herrick  v.  Belknap  (27  Vt.  673)  857 

V.  Grow  (5  Wend.  579)  1047,  1055 

V.  Minneapolis  R.  R.  (31  Minn.  11)     629 

Herriman  v.  Janney  (31  La.  An   276)  556 

Herring  v.  Wellons  (5  Sm.  &  M   354)        855 

Herrmann  v.  Fonteiieu  (29  La.  An.  502)   1054 

Herrold  v.  Reen  (58  Cal.  443)  198 

Herron's  Snccession  (32  La.  An.  835)  699 

Hershey  v.  Clark  (35  Ark.  17)  5fi 

Herstei-  v.  Herster  (116  Pa.  St.  612)        32,  48 

Hertell  v.  Bogert  (9  Pai.  52)  387,  7-34 

Hesketh  v.  Murphv  (35  N.  J.  Eq.  23)  922 

V.  Murphv  (36  N.  J.  Eq.  304)  922 

Hester  v.  Hester  (4  Dev.  228)  491 

V.  Hester  (2  Ired.  Eq.  330)  392,  938 

V.  Wesson  (6  Ala.  415)  795 

Hetfield  v.  Fowler  (60  111  45)  999 

Hethrington   v.   Graham   (6    Bing.    135, 

s.  c.  19  Eng.  C.  L.  31)  226 

Hettriek  v  Hettrick  (55  Pa.  St.  290)  ]84 

Heuser  v.  Harris  (42  111.  425)  921,  931 

Heustis  V.  Johnson  (84  111.  61)  1122 

Heward  v.  Slagle  (52  111.  3-36)  356,  525 

Hewes  V.  Dehon  (3  Grav.  205)  1093,  1105 

Hewett  ».  Bronson  (5  Daly,  1)  760,  823 

Hewitt's  Apppal  (53  Conn.  24)  340,  345 

Will  (91  N.  Y.  261)  69 

Hewitt  V.  Hewitt  (3  Bradf.  265)  1033 

r.  Hewitt  (5  Redf.  271)  69 

Hewlett  V.  Wood  (55  N.  Y.  634)  42.  479 

Hevdock  v.  Duncan  (43  N  H.  95)  435 

HeVer's  Appeal  (34  Pa.  St.  183)  1 180 

Hibbard  v.  Kent  (15  N.  H.  516)  433 

Hibbits  V.  .lack  (97  Ind.  570)  963,  964 

Hibbs  V.  Insurance  Co.  (40  Oh.  St.  543)      268 
Hihernia   Savings  Society  v.  Conlin  (67 

Cal.  178)  819 

Hickev  V.  Hickev  (26  Conn.  261)  2'!6 

Hickman  v.  Hickman  (74  Ga.  401)  1201 

V.  Irvine  (3  Dunn,  121)  230 

V.  Kamp  (3  Bush.  205)  669 

Hickox  V.  Frank  (102  111.  660)  358 

Hicks  ».  Burnett  (40  Ala.  291)  628 

V.  Chouteau  (12  Mo.  341)  5.56 

V.  Forrest  (6  Ired.  Eq.  528)  1223 

V.  Gildersleeve  (4  Abb.  Pr.  1)  1214 

V.  Hicks  (12  Barb.  322)  1203 

V.  .lamison  (10  Mo.  App  35)         782,  861 

«.  Pepper  (1  Baxt.  42)  195,199 

V.  Willis  (41  N.  .1.  Eq    515)  10.58 

Hickv  ?'.  Dallmever  (44  Mo   237)  674 

Hidden,  In  re  (23  Cal.  362)  810,  863 


Tape 

Hieschler,  In  re  (13  Iowa.  597)  173 

Higbie  v.  Westlake  (14  N.  Y.  281)  1194 

Higgins's  Trust  (2  Giff.  5ii2j  792 

Higgins  V.  Breen  (9  Mo.  497)       223,  618,  625 

V.  Butler  (78  Me.  520)  837 

V.  Carlton  (28  Md.  115)         35,  46,  70,  72 

V.  Deven  (100  111.  554)  883 

V.  Higgins  (4  llagg.  242)  790 

V.  Scott  (2  B.  &  Ad.  413)  1237 

High's  Appeal  (21  Pa.  St.  283)  1219 

Highland  r.  Highland  (109  111.  306)  66 

Hight  V.  Taylor  (97  Ind.  392)  859 

Hignutt  V.  Cranor  (62  Md.  216)  666,  680 

Hildebrand  s  Appeal  (39  Pa.  St.  133)  176 

Hildebrant  e.  Crawford  (65  N.  Y.  107)      832, 

836 

Hill's  Estate  (67  Cal.  218)  1156 

Hill,  Goods  of  (1  Robert.  276)  85 

V.  Alford  (46  Ga.  247)  892 

V.  Barti-e  (12  Ala.  687)  68 

i\  Bell  (Phillips  L.  122)  79 

V  BiUingslv  (53  Miss.  Ill)  330,  1090 
V.  Bloom  (41  N.  ,1.  Eq.  276)  1236 
?•.  Bowman  (7  Leigh.  650)  905 
V.  Buckminster  (5  Pick.  391)  794 
i\  Buford  (9  Mo.  869)  796,  1155 
V.  Burger  (10  How.  Pr.  264)  485 
V.  Franklin  (51  Miss.  632)  195 
V.  Gomme  (1  Beav.  540)  790 
V.  Hardv  (34  Miss.  289)  345 
V.  Helton  (80  Ala.  .528)  833 
V.  Henderson  (13  Sm.  &  M.  688)  423 
V.  Hill  (32  Pa.  St.  511)  173 
V.  Hill  (42  Pa.  St.  198)  175 
t).  Hill  (74  Pa.  St.  173)  949 
V.  Kessler  (63  N.  C.  437)  1076 
V.  Mitchell  (5  Ark.  608)  218,  2.59 
«j.  Moore  (1  Murph.  2.33)  1.-5 
V.  Nelson  (1  Dem.  3,57)  1166 
V.  Rockingham  Bark  (45  N.  H.  270)  896 
V.  Sewald  (53  Pa.  St.  271)  602 
V.  Stevenson  (63  Me.  -364)  119,  122 
».  Toms  (87  N.  C.  4'.'2)  1099 
V.  Townsend  (24  Tex.  575)                     640 

V  Treat  (67  Me.  501)  294 
V.  Tucker  (13  How.  458)  360,  676 
V.  Walker  (4  Kav  &  J.  166)  788 
V.  Wentworth  (28  Vt.  428)                      603 

Hillearv  v.  Hillearv  (26  Md.  274)        254,  950 

Hillebrant  v.  Burton  (17  Tex.  138)  810 

Hillgartner  v.  Gebhart  (25  Oh.  St.  557)      262 

Hilliard,  Ex  parte  (6  S.  W.  R.  326)  259 

V.  Binf.^rd  (10  Ala.  977)  602 

Hillis  V.  Hillis  (16  Hun,  76)  946 

Ilillman  v..  Stephens  (16  N.  Y.  278)  715 

Hills  u.  Mills  (1  Salk.36)  406 

Hillvard  v.  Miller  (10  Pa.  St.  326)  917 

Hilton  r.  Briggs  (54  Mich.  265)  1125 

Ililvard's  Estate  (5  Watts  &  S.  30)  1006 

Himes's  Appeal  (94  Pa.  St.  381)  186 

Hinchcliffe  v.  Hinchcliffe  (3  Ves.  516)        975 

V.  Shea  (103  N.  Y.  153)  2-37.  247 

Hinckley's  Estate  (58  Cal.  457)  911,  919, 

928,  929,  9.30,  931 

Estate  (Mvr.  189)  324,  350 

Hincklev  v.  Harriman  (45  Mich.  353)        1232 

V.  Hincklev  (79  Me.  .320)  837 

V.  Probate 'Judge  (45  Mich.  343)  1012 

V.  Thatcher  (139  Mass.  477)  895 

Hinde  v.  Whitebnuse  (7  East,  558)  1082 

Hinds  V.  Hinds  (85  Ind.  312)  560 


TABLE    OP    CASES. 


IX) 


Page 

nine  V.  Iline  (39  Barb.  507)  974 

V.  Hussv  (45  Ala.  4im)  527 

Hiiier  v.  Koiiii  dii  l.ac  (71  Wis.  74)  (323 

Hiiu's  V.  Spruill  (2  1).  .V  H.  Kq.  9;j)  1104 

lliiikle  V.  Shadduii  ("2  Swan,  40)  308 

Hinkley  ().  House  of  Refuge  (40  Md.  401)  1)00 

Hinsdale  v.  Williams  (75  N.  (,'.  4;j0)  216,  1077 

Hinson  u.  Rush  (4  Soulli.  K.  410)  22!) 

V.  Ilinson  («1  Kv.  :]6;i)  1)88 

V.  Williamson  (74  Ala.  180)  723,  738 

Hinton  v.  HIand  (81  Va.  588)  744 

v:  Hinton  (0  Ired.  !..  274)  270 

v.  Milbiini  (23  W.  Va.  100)  873,  001 

Hiscock  V.  Javcox  (12  N.  liankr.  R.  507)  234 

Hiscoeks  V.  Hiscocks  (5  M.  &  W.  3G3)       8!)3 

Rise  V.  FincluT  (10  Ired.  L.  139)  8i) 

Hilcli  y.  Davis  (3  Md.  Ch.  200)  1005 

Hitchcock  V.  Hitchcock  (-35  I'a.  St.  .393)   878, 

883 

V.  Marshall  (2  Redf  174)  807 

Hitchin  v.  Ilitehin  (I'r.  Ch.  133)  200 

Hite's  Estate  (Mvr.  232)  1235 

Hite  y.  Ilite  (1  II.  Mon.  177)  284 

V.  Snns  (114  Ind.  333)  34 

Hix  V.  Hix  (25  W.  Va.  481)  1157 

Hoagland  v.  Sclienck  (10  N.  J.  L.  -370)       994 

V.  See  (40  N.  J.  Eq.  409)  1 132 

Hoak  V.  Hoak  (b  Watts,  80)  1216,  1223 

Hoard  v.  Chnn  (31  Minn.  18fi)  281 

Hoare  v.  Osborne  (L.  R.  1  Eq.  SS'.)  934 

H.>back  V.  Hoback  (33  Ark.  309)         199,  204 

Hoban  r.  Piquette  (.52  Mich.  340)  44,  47 

Hobart  r.  Herrick  (28  Vt.  027)  854 

r.  Hobart  (02  X.  Y.  89)  833 

V.  Turnpike  Co.  (15  Conn.  125)  358,  309, 

074 

Hobbs  V.  Grains  (1  Ired.  L.  3-32)      11.58,  1229 

V.  Middleton  (1  J.  J.  Marsh.  170)        8(i0 

».  Russell  (79  Kv.  01)  835 

Hobsont'.  Blaekburii  (1  Add.  274)  50 

V.  Hale  (95  N.  Y.  588)  720 

r.  Pavne  (45  III.  1.58)  lO.JO 

Hochstedier  y.  Hochstedler  (108  Ind.  500)  878, 

900,  902 

Hockensmith  v.  Slasher  (26  Mo.  237)  111,  893 

Hocker's  Estate  (14  Phila.  659)  776 

Hooker  v.  Gentry  (3  Met.  Kv.  463)     896,  983 

Hodgdon  V.  White  (11  N.  H.  208)       841.  813 

Hodge  V.  Hawkins  (1  Dev.  &  B.  Eq.  564)  1170 

V.  Hodge  (72  N.  C.  616)  1000 

Hodges  v.  Powell  (96  N.  C.  64)  275 

V.  Thacher  (23  Vt.  4.55)        854,  855,  1197 

Hodgin  V.  Toler  (70  Iowa,  21)       719,  721,  724 

Hodnett  v.  Smith  (2  Sweeney,  401)  475 

Hodo  V.  Johnson  (40  <ia.  439)  195 

Hodsden  r.  Llovd  (2  Br.  C.  C.  534)       26,  104 

Hoe  i\  Wilson  (9  Wall.  501)  1002 

Hoell  i\  Blanchard  (4  Des.  21)  559 

Hoes  r.  Halsev  (2  Dem.  577)  327,  348 

Hoft's  Ai)pcar(24  Pa.  St.  200)  1105 

Hoffman  r.  Gold  (8  G.  &  .1.  79)  522 

V.  Hoffman  (20  Ala.  535)  08 

V.  Wheelock  (62  Wis.  434)         1029,  1083 

I'.  Wilding  (85  III.  453)  1205 

Hoffmann  r.  Neubaus  (.30  Tex.  6.33)  196 

Hogan  r.  Calvert  (21   Ala.  194)  8-56 

r.  Curtin  (88  N.  Y.  102)  91)3 

I'.  Thompson  (2  La.  An.  538)  691 

V.  Wvman  (2  Oreg.  302)  76.  411,  545 

Hoge  V.  Hollister  (2  Tenn.  Ch.  606)  212 

I'  Junkiii  (79  Va.  220)  1071 


Pa-e 

Hogeboom  r.  Hall  (24  Wend.  146)  952 

Hoghton  V.  Hoghton  (15  Beav.  278)  49 

llohman.  In  re  (37  Hun,  250)  957 

iloit  .;.  Hoit  (40  N.  J.  E(j.  478)  9.59 

v.  lloit  (42  N.  .).  E(|.  388)  9.59,  9(i0 

Hoitt  V.  lloitt  (03  N.  H.  475)  89,  103,  109,  491 

V.  Webb  (30  N.  11.  158)  1087 

Hoke  17.  Fleming  (10  Ired.  203)  7;i3 

V.  Herman  (21  Pa.  St.  301)  973,  1)80 

V.  Hoke  (12  W.  Va.  427)      699,  939,  1158 

Ilolbert's  Succession  (3  La.  An.  436)         701, 

1140 

Holbrook  V.  Bentlev  (32  Conn.  502)  553 

v.  Campan  (22  Mich.  288)  570 

r.  McCleary  (79  Ind.  107)  944 

V.  White  (13  Wend.  .591)  620,  043 

r.  Wightman  (31  Minn.  108)  207 

Ilolcomb  r.  Ilolcomb  (11  N.  .).  Eq.  281)  1191 

r.  Lake  (24  N.  .L  L.  08(i)  881 

V.  Lake  (25  N.  J.  L.  005)  881 

v.  Phelps  (16  Conn.  127)  650 

V.  Sherwood  (29  Conn.  418)         345,  1245 

Holcombe  r.  liokombe  (13  N.  ,J.  Eq.  413)  738 

V.  Holcombe  (29  N.  .J.  Eq.  .597)  10()2 

Holdefer  v.  Terfel  (51  Ind.  343)  873 

Holden  v.  Fletcher  (0  Cush.  235)  1258 

V.  Meadows  (31  Wis.  284)  42 

I'.  Pinnev  (6  Cal.  234)  216 

Holdfast  V.  Dowsing  (2  Stra.  1253)  72 

Hole  V.  Robbins  (53^^  Wis.  514)  141 

Holitield  V.  Robinson  (79  Ala.  419)  913 

Holland  v.  Alcock  (108  N.  Y.  312)     903.  909, 

920,  928,  932 

V.  Cruft  (3  Gray,  162)  1070 

V.  Crupt  (20  Pick.  321)         127.  631,  1258 

V.  Ferris  (2  Bradf.  334)  91 

V.  Fuller  (13  Ind.  195)  283 

V.  Peck  (2  Ired.  E(i.  255)  930 

V.  Smvth  (40  Hun,  372)  909 

HoUenbeck  v.  Pixlev  (3  Gray,  521)  165, 

179,  768 

Holley  i:  Adams  (16  Vt.  206)  121 

Hollidav  V.  HoUiday  (38  La.  An.  175)       1232 

V.  McKinne  (22  Fla.  153)  631,  8-52 

17.  Wingtield  (59  Ga.  206)         1217,  1218, 

1219 

Hollinger  v.  Hollv  (8  Ala.  454)  857 

V.  Svms  (37  X.  J.  F:q.  221)  34 

HollingslK-ad  v.  Sturges  (10  La.  An.  334)  470 

V.  Sturgis  (21  La.  An.  4.50)  90 

Hollings worth's  Appeal  (51  Pa.  St   518)     112 

Hollis  V.  Ilollis  (4  Baxt.  524)  238 

Hollister  r.  District  Court  (8  Oh.  St.  201)  3-36 

V.  Shaw  (46  Conn.  248)  879 

Hollman  r.  Bennett  (44  Miss.  .322)  1038,  1040 

r.  Tigges  (42  N.  J.  Eq.  127)  718 

Hollowav  V.  St;;art  (19  Oh.  St.  472)  1073 

HolmanV  Hopkins  (27  Tex.  38)  494 

r.  Nance  (84  Mo.  474)  231 

V.  Sims  (39  Ala.  709)  1147 

Holmes,  Petitioner  (-33  Me.  577)  -394 

V.  Beal  (9  Cusli.  223)  1034 

r.  Bridgman  (37  Vt.  28)  078 

r.  Cock  (2  Barb.  Ch.  426)  543,  545 

V.  Field  (12  111.  424)  902 

V.  Holmes  (28  Vt.  765)  642,  1147 

V.  Hcdmes  (.36  Vt.  525)  8;)2 

)•.  .Tohns  (.50  Tex.  41)  407 

r.  Kring{93  Mo.  452)  2-56 

V.  Mead  (.52  N.  Y.  332)  920,  928 

V.  Mitchell  ;2  Murphv,  228)  868 


Ixxviii 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


Holmes  v.  Oregon  R.  R.  (7  Sawv.  380) 
V.  Keinseii  (20  Jdliii  2211) 
V.  Winchester  (138  Mass.  542) 
Holseii  V.  Kockhou-e  (83  Ky.  233) 
Holt  V.  Hoguii  (5  Jones  Kqr82) 

V  UUby  (80  Me.  32U)  1238, 
Helton  r.  Dalv  (100  III.  131) 

V.  White  (23  N.  J.  L.  330) 
Holtzclaw  r.  Ware  (34  Ala.  307) 
Holvoke  V.  Haskins  (5  Fick.  20)   330,  439 

'v.  Haskins  (9  Pick.  2.59) 
Holvoker  v.  jMutiiai  L.  Ins.  Co.  (22  Hun, 

75) 
Holziiian  V.  Hibben  (100  Ind.  338) 
Home  V.  Pringle  (8  Clark  &  Fin.  264) 
Homer's  Appeal  (35  Conn.  113) 

Appeal  (55  Pa.  St.  337) 
Homer  v.  Shelton  (2  Met.  194)  999, 

Homestead  Assoc.  i\  Ensloe  (7  S.  C.  1) 
Honifrav,   Goods  of  (L.  R.  12  Prob.  D. 

138,  note) 
Hone  V.  Lockman  (4  Redf.  61) 

V.  Van  Schaick  (3  N.  Y.  538)       878. 
Honevwood,  Goods  of  (L.  R.  2  P.  &  D. 

251) 
Hood,  In  re  (104  N.  Y.  103)     589,  1209, 
Hood's  Succession  (33  La.  An.  4G6) 
Hood  V.  Haden  (82  Va.  588)       900,  965, 

V.  Hood  (85  N.  Y.  561)  719, 

Hook  V.  Bixbv  (13  Kan.  104) 

V.  Dver  (47  Mo.  214) 

V.  Hook  (13  B.  Mon.  528)  1218, 

r.  Pavne  (14  Wall    252) 
Hooker  r'.  Bancroft  (4  Pick.  50) 

V.  Hooker  (10  Sm.  &  M.  599) 

V.  Olmstead  (6  Pick.  481) 
Hooper  v.  Brvant  (3  Yerg.  1) 

V.  (iorhain  (45  Me.  209)  618, 

V.  Hardie  (80  Ala.  114) 

V.  Hooper  (29  W.  Va.  276)  551, 

688, 

V.  ^IcCiuarv  (5  Coldw.  129) 

V.  Moore  (5  Jones,  130) 

V  Rossiter  (McCiel.  527) 
V.  Smith  (57  Ala.  557) 
V.  Summersett  (Wit,^htw.  16)        415 

Hoopes  V.  Dundas  (10  Pa.  St.  75) 
Hooton  r.  Head  (3  Pliillim.  26) 

V.  Ramsom  (6  !Mo.  App.  19) 
Hoover  r.  Maien  (83  Ind.  195) 

V.  Miller  (6  Jones,  79)  669, 

Hope  V.  Jones  (24  Cal.  89) 

V.  Wilkinson  (14  Lea,  21)  1094, 1108, 
Hopkins,  In  re  (.32  Hun,  618) 

r.  Clavbrook  (5  J.  J.  Marh.  234) 

V.  De'Graffenreid  (2  Bay,  187) 

V.  Faeber  (5  S.  W.  749) 

V.  Ladd  (12  R.  I.  279) 

V.  Lontr  (9  Ga.  261) 

V.  McCann  (19  III.  113) 

r.  Stout  (6  Bush,  375) 

V.  Towns  (4  B.  Mon.  124) 

V.  Van  Valkenburtjh  (16  Hun,  3) 
Hopkinson  r.  Dumas  (42  N.  H.  296) 
Hopper  V.  Fisher  (2  Head,  253)  330, 

V.  McWhorter(18  Ala.  229) 

V.  Steele  (18  Ala.  828) 
Hoppin  V.  Hoppin  (96  111.  265) 
Hoppiss  V.  F:skridire  (2  Ired.  Eq.  54) 
Hopple's  Estate  (13  Phila.  259) 


Pase  1 

503 

377 

201 

94;) 

1008 

124it 

622 

883 

1200 

,569 

330 

441 

433 
1160 

344 
1033 
1000 

211 

26 

1187 

899 

486 

12.52 

1054 

967, 

973 

1009 

831 

681 

1221 

1138 

603 

332 

374 

842 

,  622 

1037 

5.58, 

1184 

78 

506 

10113 

1123 

,  423 

963 

99 

817 

1085 

1116 

1170 

1109 

1172 

1234 

474 

834 

1272 

173 

10.30 

1029 

417 

10.30 

235 

1090 

607 

6;)5 

263 

518 

44 


Page 
938 
788 
87 
736 
710 
913 


Hoppock  V.  Tucker  (.59  N.  Y.  202) 
Hopton  V.  Dryden  (Pr.  Ch.  179)  787, 

Hopwood  V.  flopwood  (7  H.  L.  Cas  728) 
Hord  V.  Lee  (4  T.  B.  Mon.  36) 
Horn  V.  Lockhart  (17  Wall.  ,57:)) 
Hornbeck  v.  Westbrook  (9  John.  73) 
Hornberger  V.  Hornberi,^er  (12  Ileisk.  635)  934 
Hornby,  Ex  parte  (2  Bradf.  420)  880 

Horne\-.  Home  (9  Ired.  Eq.  99)  478 

Horner  v.  Hasbrouck  (41  Pa  St.  169)       1045 
V.  Nicholson  (50  Mo.  220)  676 

Horrv  v.  Glover  (2  Hill  Ch.  515)  1001 

Horsev  v.  Heath  (5  Oh.  353)  287 

Horskins  v.  Morel  (T.  U.  P.  Charlt.  69)     528 
Horton  v.  Cantwell  (108  N.  Y.  255)  353 

V.  Carlisle  (2  Disn.  184)  686 

V   Horton  (2  Bradf.  200)  1061 

Hosack  r  Rogers  (0  Pai.  415)  787 

V.  Rogers  (9  Pai.  401)  1176 

V.  Rogers  (11  Pai.  003)  570 

Hosford  V.  Wvnn  (22  S.  C.  309)  201 

Hoskins  v.  Miller  (2  Dev.  300)  516,  .506 

Hosmer  v.  Baer  (5  La.  An.  35)  740 

Hosser's  Succession  (37  La.  An.  839) 
Hostetter's  Appeal  (6  Watts,  244) 
Hostetterw.  Schalk  (85  Pa.  St.  220) 
Hostler  «.  Scull  {2  Havw.  179) 
Hotchkiss  V.  Beach  (10  Conn.  232) 
Hottell  V.  Browder  (13  Lea,  676) 
Hottenstein's  Appeal  (2  Grant  Cas.  301) 

Houck's  Estate  (17  Pac.  461) 
Houck  V.  Houck  (5  Pa.  St.  273) 
Hough  V.  Bailev  (32  Conn.  288) 

V.  Harvev  (71  III.  72) 
Houghton  V.  Houghton  (34  Hun,  212) 

V.  Kendall  (7  Allen,  72) 

i\  Watson  (1  Dem.  299) 
House  V.  House  (10  Pai.  158) 

V.  Woodard  (5  Coldw.  196) 
Houston  r.  Deloach  (43  Ala.  364) 

V.  Lane  (62  Iowa,  291) 
Hover  v.  Penn.  R.  R.  Co.  (25  Oh.  St.  667) 
Hovev  V.  Chase  (52  Me.  304) 

V.  Hovey  (61  N.  H.  599) 

V.  Page  (55  INIe.  142) 
Howard  v.  American  Society  (49  Me.  288) 


V.  Carusi  (109  U.  S.  725) 

V.  Francis  (30  N.  J.  Eq    444) 


272, 


14ti 
574 
836 
424 
855 
951 

811, 

1156 

10.33 
722 
693 

1137 
125 
897 

1014 
603 

1219 
710 
271 
630 
43 
271 
624 

882, 
929 
948 
731, 


985,  1007,  1151 

t'.  Leavell  (10  Bush,  481)  809 

I'.  Menifee  (5  Ark.  668)  118 

V.  Moffatt  (2  John.  Ch.  206)  1015 

V.  Moore  (2  Mich.  226)  1050 

V.  Moot  (64  N.  Y.  262)  22 

V.  Patrick  (38  Mich.  795)  713,  8.34 

V.  Priest  (5  Met.  Miss.  582)  234,  289 

V.  Wofford  (16  S.  C.  148)  1098 

V.  Worrill  (72  Ga.  397)  546 

Howcott  V.  Coffield  (7  Ired.  L.  24)  621 

V.  Warren  (7  Ired.  L.  20)  621 

Howe  V.  Dartmouth  (7  Ves.  137)  998 

V.  ^NIcGivern  (25  Wis.  525)  330 

V.  Merrick  (11  Grav,  129)  835 

V.  Peabodv  (2  Grav.  556)  554 

V.  Pratt  (11  Vt.  255)  499 

V.  Searing  (10  Abb.  Pr.  264)  202.  293 

r.  Wilson  (91  Mo.  45)  922,  928 

Howell's  Will  (5  T.  B.  Mon.  199)  475 

Howell  V.  Ashmore  (22  N.  J.  L.  261)  252 


TABLE   OF    CASES. 


Ixxix 


HowL-11  r.  Harden  (3  Dev.  442)  41K) 

V.  Ulo.l-ett  (1  Kedf.  :j-2;j)  (iS4 

V.  Frv  (I'J  Oil.  81.550)  082 

r.  Ilo.iks  (4  Irwl.  K<|.  188)  9(17 

V.  Unwell  C-il  Mo    124)  081 

V.  Kiii-ht  (100  X.  ('.  2.-.4)  900,  'JOl 

r.  Metcalfe  (2  Add.  :i48)  40(i 

V.  Morelan  (78  111.  102)  3.J4 

V.  I'otts  (20  N.  J.  L.  1)  852 

V.  'rmutman  (8  .loiies  L.  304)  45 

V.   I'vler  ('.)1  N.  C.  207)  108:! 

V.  Whiteliureh  (4  Ilavw.  49)         497,  hOO 

Howland  v.  Dews  (K.  M.'Chailt.  383)         420 

r.  Green  (108  Mass.  277)  355 

V.  Heekscher  (3  Sandf.  Ch.  519)         12-i(J 

V.  Howland  (11  Grav,  4G9)  878,  H'M', 

Howze  i:  Howze  (2  S.  C.  229)  215 

Hoxie  V.  CaiT  (1  Sumn.  173)  290 

Hovsrodt  V.  Kintjman  (22  N.  Y.  372)  08 

Hoyt  ('    I5onnett'(.50  N.  Y.  5-i8)  812 

V.  Davis  (21  Mo.  App.  235)  231 

V.  Dav  (.32  Oh.  St.  l(tl)  718 

V.  IloVt  (85  N.  Y.  142)        988,  989,  1098 

V.  .laques  (129  Mass.  280)  7.32 

r.  Newbold  (45  N.  .1.  L.  219)        445,  402 

V.  Sprai?ue  (103  U.  S.  013)  285 

Hulihard  V.  Alexander  (L.  H.  3  Cli.  D. 

738)  970 

r.  Rarciis  (.38Md.  175)  518 

V.  liiigbee  (o8  Vt.  172)  607 

r.  (Joodwin  (3  Leisrli,  492)  302.  .305 

f.  Hubbard  (16  Ind.  25)  787 

r.  Iliibbanl  (8  N.  Y.  190)  85 

V.  Hubbard  (7  Oreg.  42)  35,  47,  499 

r.  Hubbard  (15  Q.  B.  227)  8.i4 

v.  Llovd  (0  Cush.  522)  8  lO 

f.  Smith  (45  Ala.  516)  570 

V.  Wood  (15  N.  H.  74)  161,  189 

Hubbell  V.  Fosrartie  (1  Hill,  S.  C.,L.107)  422 

Hubble  V.  Foii:artie  (3  Rich.  413)  414,  415 

Huber  v.  Molin  (.37  N.  .1.  Eq.  432)  937 

Hiickabee  r.  Swoope  (20  Ala.  491)  952 

Huckstep's  Estate  (5  Mo.  App.  581)  571 

Hudgens  r.  Cameron  (50  Ala.  .379)  1003 

Huds,.n  r.  Breeding  (7  Ark.  445)  803 

V.  Hudson  (20  Ala.  .364)  .330 

V.  Stewart  (48  Ala.  204)  208,  210 

Huff  V.  Watkins  i20  S.  C.  477)  617,  624 

Hufman-s  Appeal  (81  Pa.  St.  320)  190 

Huggins  r.  Hu-gins  (71  Ga.  66)  1215 

v.  Toler  (1  Bush.  192)  623 

Hughes's  Appeal  (57  Pa.  St,  179)  1213,  1216, 

1220 

Succession  (14  La.  An.  863)  1148 

Hughes,  In  re  (95  N.  Y.  55)         362,  375,  370 

V.  Bovd  (2  Snecd,  512)  902 

V.  Burriss  (85  Mo.  060)  501 

V.  Dalv  (49  Conn,  .34)  928 

V.  Fmi)son  (22  Beav.  181)  6)2 

r.  Knowlton  (-37  Conn.  42  ^  8)8 

r.  Martha  (32  N.  J.  Eq.  288)  46 

r.  Watson  (10  Oh.  127)  251 

Hughev  n.  Eichelberger  (11  S.  C.  36)        1222 

V.  Sidwell  (18  B.  Mon.  259)  469,  499 

Hugo,  Go-ds  of  (L.  R.  2  P.  D.  73)  58 

Hule  i".  McConnell  (2  Jones  L.  455)  76 

H-.iling  V.  Fenner  (9  R.  I.  410)  904,  906 

Hull  r.  Hull  (24  N.  Y.  647)  918 

r.  .Tones  (10  Lea,  100)  847 

r.  Rnwls  (27  i\Iiss.  471)  224 

Hulse's  Estate  (12  Phila.  130)  12-30 


P.i-e 
Hulsc's  Will  (.52  Iowa,  662)  70 

Humbert  v.  Wurster  (22  Hun.  405)  410 

Humes  v.  Scruggs  (04  Ala.  40)  246,  259 

V.  Wood  (8  Pick.  478)  980 

Ilumphrev's  Will  (20  N.  .J.  Eq.  513)      4-3,  47 
Humiilirev  v.  Bullen  (1  Alk.  458)  516 

r.  .MJrritt  (51  Ind,  197)  599 

Ilumphrevs  v.  Humphrevs  (2  Cox,  184)     980 

r.  Keith  (11  Kan.  1(")8)  1248 

f.  Tavlor  (5  Or.  200)  714 

Humphrie's  i-.  Davis  (100  Ind.  274)  141 

Hunt's  Appeal  (105  Pa.  St.  128)  727 

Fstate  (15  Phila.  511) 
Hunt  r.  Bass  (2  Dev.  i:(|.  292) 

V.  Butterworth  (21  Tex.  1.33) 

r.  Danforth  (2  Curt.  592) 

v.  Drane  (32  Miss.  243) 

V.  Fowler  (121  111.  209) 


702 

6-32 

856 

414,  419 

919,  921,92.3, 

929,  931 

337 


V.  Grant  (19  Wend.  90) 

r.  Hamilton  (9  Dana,  90)  406 

r.  Hapgood  (4  Mass.  117)  1245 

r.  Hunt  (119  Mass.  474)  124 

r.  Hunt  (11  Met.  (Mass.)  88)  881 

V.  Hunt  (3  B.  Mon.  575)  41 

V.  Hunt  (4  N.  H.  434)  61 

V.  .Tohnson  (10  B.  Mon.  342)  889 

V.  .Johnson  (44  N.  Y.  27)  609 

V.  Sneed  (64  N.  C.  176)  1123 

Hunter's  Succession  (13  La.  An   2.57)  212 
Hunter  v.  Brvson  (5  G.  & .].  483)       359,  370, 

406 

r.  French  (86  Tnd.  320)  1033 

r.  (iardonbire  (13  Lea,  6.58)  483 

r.  Hailett  (1  Edw,  Cb,  388)  642 

r.  Hunter  (19  Barb.  631)  740 

r.  Hustcd  (Busb,  Eq.  97)  1217 

V.  Law  (08  Ala,  365)  103 

V.  Lawrence  (11  Grat.  Ill)  387 

v.  Wallace  (13  Up.  Can   Q.  B.  -385)      427 

Hunters  v.  Waite  (3  Grat.  20)  609 

Huntington  v.  Finch  (3  Oh.  St.  445)  331 

Hurd  r.  Slaten  (43  III.  348)  340 

Hurford  V.  Haines  (67  Md.  240)  1009 

Hurlburti;.  Wheeler  (40  X.  H.73)  1123,  1136 

Hurleman  v.  Hazlett  (55  Iowa,  256)  276 

Hurlev's  Estate  (12  Pbila.  47)  190 

HurleV  V.  Barnard  (48  Tex.  83)  330 

i\  Hamilton  (.37  Minn.  160)  1244 

V.  O'Sullivan  (1.37  Mass.  86)  110 

Hum  V.  Keller  (79  Va.  415)  1022 

Hurst  r.  Beach  (5  Madd.  351)       971,  972,  981 

Hurste  v.  Hotaling  (20  Neb.  178)  258 

Husbands  v.  Bullock  (1  Duv.  21)  185 

Huson  r.  Wallace  (1  Rich.  Eq.  1)  691 

Hussev  V.  Coffin  (1  Allen,  .3.54)  578 

r.'  White  ( 10  Ser<r.  &  R.  346)  792 

Husson  r.  Neil  (41  Ind.  504)  28.1 

HusteiPs  Appeal  (34  Conn.  488)  1198 

Huston's  Appeal  (9  Watts,  472)  1"07 

Hutchcraft  v.  Tilford  (5  Dana.  353)    677,  791 

Hutcherson  v.  Pigg  (8  Grat.  220)  1142 

Hutcboson  v.  Priddv  (12  Grat.  85)  .396 

Hutchins  r.  Adams"(3  INIe.  174)  620 

V.  Brooks  (31  Miss.  430)  1077 

V.  Smith  (31  Jliss.  430)  095 

Hutchinson's  Appeal  (34  Conn.  SCO)  11 ''5 

Hutchinson  v.  Lenicke  (107  Tnd.  121)  2';3. 1074 

V.  Reed  (1  HnfTm.  Ch.  N.  Y.  316)   64.5.  055 

V.  Roberts  (67  N.  C   223)  1123 

V.  Stiles  (3  N.  H.  404)  1207 


]xxx 


TABLE   OF   CASES. 


Ilulton  V.  Tluttnn  (40  N.  J.  Eq.  4G1)  12:;8 

r.  llutton  (;5  Vn.  St.  l()(t)  2G5,  (ill 

r.  Williams  (60  Ala.  107)  ll-'« 

Huxford  V.  MilliKUii  (50  Iiid.  542)  HI 5 

Huxtun,  In  re  (102  N.  Y.  157)  838,  lO-'O, 

1033,  1035,  1038 

Hyatt  V.  Lunnin  (1  Dem.  14)  43 

V.  McBuriiev  (18  S.  C.  190)  700,  733 

Hvde's  Estate  ((J4  Cai.  228)  400 

Hvde  V.  Haldwin  (17  I'itk.  303)  500,  OOO 

'    V.  Easter  (4  Md.  Ch.  80)  285 

V.  Hvde  (1  Eq.  Cas.  Abr.  409)  90 

V.  llVde  (Free.  Ch.  310)  24 

Hver  V.  Morehouse  (20  N.  .1.  L.  125)         1130 

HVland  V.  Baxter  (98  N.  Y.  6J0)        324,  340, 

1153 
Hvlton  V.  Hvlton  (1  Grat.  161)  98 

Hvinan  v.  Gaskins  (5  Ired.  L.  267)    440,  494. 

495 

V.  Jarnisan  (65  N.  C.  96)  1034,  10G2 

Hvneman's  Estate  (11  Phila.  135)  1144 

HVnes  V.  McCreerv  (2  Dem.  1-58)  1199 

H'yzer  v.  Stoker  (3  B.  Mon.  117)  257 

laege  v.  Bossieux  (15  Grat.  83)  239 

leclv  V.  Grew  (6  Nev.  &  Man.  467)  424 

Idlev  V.  Uowen  (11  Wend.  227)      90,  480,  481 
lirlehart  v.  Kirwan  (10  Md.  559)  873 

I'hmsen's  Appeal  (43  Pa.  St.  431)  707 

Ikelheimer  v.  Chapman  (.32  Ala.  676)  694 

Ilchester,  Ex  parte  (7  Ves.  .348)  10(i 

Ilsrenfritz's  Appeal  (5  W^atts,  25)  149 

Hiinois  C.  R.  R.  v.  Cragin  (71  111.  177)      3(i9, 
.398,  441,  565 
Indianapolis   v.  Grand   Master  (25   Ind. 

518)  9:« 

Insre  V.  Murphy  (U  Ala.  289)  256 

Inirham  v.  White  (4  Allen,  412)  609 

lu'de  V.  Jones  (9  Wall.  486)  393 

Inglis  V.  Sailors'  SnugHarbor  (3Pet.  93)  920, 

923 
Ingraham  v.  Rogers  (2  Tex.  464)  1125 

Ingrnm  v.  Ingram  (5  Heisk.  541)  10.39 

'    r.  Morris  (4  Harr.  Ill)  239,  245 

V.  Strong  (2  Phillim.  2;)4)  55 

Ingrem  v  Mackey  (5  Redf.  357)  727 

Iiiman  v.  Foster  (69  Ga.  385)  1084 

Jii  re .     For  cases  under  ''In    re," 

see  the  names  of  the  parties. 
Insurance  Co.  v.  Lewis  (97  U.  S.  682)         397 
International   R.  R.  Co.  v.  Timmermann 

(61  Tex. 660)  217 

Ipswich  Co.  V.  Story  (5  Met.  Mass.  310)      652 

Irbv  I'.  Graham  (46  Miss.  425)  287 

"  r.  Kitchell  (42  Ala.  438)  705 

Iredale  v.  Ford  (1  Sw.  &  T.  305)  529 

Ireland  v.  Fonst  (3  Jones  l':q.  498)  1019 

V.  Ireland  (12  Atl.  184)  2.53 

Irish  V.  Nutting  (47  Barb.  370)  120 

V.  Smith  (8  Serg.  &  R.  573)  42,  479 

Ironmongers'  Co.  r.  Attorney  General  (10 

CI.  &  Fin.  908)  '  927,931 

Irons  V.  Irons  (5  R.  T.  264)  828 

V.  Sinallpiece  (2  B.  &  Aid.  551)  124 

Irvin  V.  Bond  (41  Ga.  630)  3.56 

V.  Newlin  (63  Miss.  192)  902 

Irwin's  Appeal  (33  Conn.  128)  494 

Appeal  (35  Pa.  St.  294)  738 

Succession  (33  La.  An.  63)  974,  983 

Irwin  V.  Backus  (25  Cal.  214)  866 


Irwin  r.  Brooks  (19  S.  C.  96)  260 

I'.  Zane  (15  W.  Va.  046)  882 

Isaacs's  Estate  (-30  Cal.  105)  1167 

Isenhart  v.  Brown  (1  Edw.  Ch.  411)  272 

V.  Brown  (2  Edw.  Ch.  341)  1006 

Isham  V.  Gibbons  (1  Bradf.  69)  374 

Isler  r.  Isler  (88  N.  C.  581)  1016 

Ison  V.  Ison  (5  Rich.  Eq.  15)  1218,  1219 

Israeli  v.  Rodon  ("2  Moore  P.  C.  51)  106 

Ivers  V.  Ivers  (61  Iowa,  921)  835 

Iverson  t\  Loberg  (26  III.  179)  329 

Ives  V.  Allyn  (12  Vt.  589)  41  2 

v.  Pierson  (1  Freem.  Ch.  220)  1078 

V.  Salisburv  (.56  Vt.  565)  493 

Ivev  r.  Coleman  (42  Ala.  409)  699,  704 

Iviiis's  Appeal  (106  Pa.  St.  176)  903,  905 

Izard  V.  Izard  (Bailev  lv\.  228)  610 

V.  Izard  (2  Desaus.  308)  897 

V.  Middleton  (1  Desaus.  116)  57 

Izon  V.  Butler  (2  Price,  34)  936 


.Tack's  Appeal  (94  Pa.  St.  367)  708 
Jack  t'.  Sehoenberger  (22  Pa.  St.  416)         112 

Jackman's  Will  (26  Wis.  104)  46.  48 

Jacks  V.  Bridewell  (51  Miss.  881)  829,  834 

V.  Dyer  (31  Ark.  334)       '  254 

V.  Henderson  (1  Desaus.  543)  54,  55 

Jackson  r.  Bctts  (6  Cow.  377)  481 

V.  Billinger  (18  John.  368)  949 

V   Bmieham  (15  John.  226)  446 

r.  Burtis  (14  John.  -391)  716 

V.  Chase  (98  Mass.  286)  700 

r.  Chew  (12  Wheat.  1.53)  949 

V.  CAaw  (18  John.  .346)  223 

r.  Coggin  (29  Ga.  403)  897 

V.  Dewitt(6  Cow.  316)  244 

V.  Durland  (2  John.  Cas.  314)  75 

V.  Edwards  (7  Pai.  386)  242 

V.  Etz  (5  Cow  314)  446 

V.  Ferris  (15  John.  346)  393 

r.  Gilchrist  (15  John.  89)  248 

V.  Given  (16  John.  107)  516 

V.  Haliidav  (3  Redf.  379)  1040 

V.  Hardin  "(83  Mo.  175)  31,  37,  46 

V.  Hartwell  (8  John.  422)  913 

V.  Hollowav  (7  John.  394)  93 

V.  Hurlock"(l  Amh.  487)  112 
V.  Jackson  (28  Miss.  674)         1214,  1217, 
1221,  1222 

V,  .Tackson  (4  Mo.  210)  484 

V.  Jeffries  (1  A.  K.  iMarsh.  88)  392 

V.  Johnson  (5  Cow.  74)  276 

V.  Kip  (8  N.  J.  L.  241)  951 

V.  Kniffen  (2  John.  31)  90.491 

V.  Le  Grange  (19  John.  386)  473,  501 

V.  j\Li£rruder  (51  Mo.  55)  1043 

v.  Maiin  (15  John.  2.03)  92 

V.  Paulet  (2  Rob.  Ecc.  344)  .503 
V.  Phillips  (14  Allen,  539)    919,  926.  927, 
9.30,  931 

V.  Potter  (9  .Tohn.  312)  102,  113 

V.  Reid  (32  Oh.S^  44-3)  211 

V.  Reynolds  (39  N.  J.  Eq.  313)  1125,  1130 

V.  Roberts  (14  Grav.  546)  9.37,  938 

V.  Robins  (16  .John.  537)  874 

V.  Robinson  (4  Wend.  436)  735,  1024 

V.  Schauber  (7  Cow.  187)  882 

v.  Sellick  (8  John.  262)  277 

V.  State  (8  Tex.  App.  60)  260 

V.  Vanderheyden  (17  John.  167)  254 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


Ixxxi 


Pa  Re 

Jackson  r.  Vickorv  (1  Wond.  400)  473 

V.  Walsh  (14  .■(ohii.  407)  7i).-J 

V.  Weavi-r  ('J8  Iriil.  .•i()7)  lO-':i 

r.  WestiTliuKl  (01  How.  I'r.  .39!))  UM 

V.  Woods  (1  John.  Ciis.  ](i:j)  7.^ 

Jacksonville  Co.  v.  Chappcll  {±2  Fla.  GIO)  (l-'-i 

Jacob'.s  Appeal  (23  I*a.  St.  477)  iiUl 

Jacobs  r.  15radlcv  (.-{fl  Com).  W:,)  UUi 

V.  Morrow  (21  Neb,  2;3:j)  C.53,  l-_'i).S 

V.  Pou  (18  Ga.  ;J4fi)  1247 

V.  Woodsidc  (G  S.  C.  490)      .391,  653,  (!r,4 

Jacobson  V.  Le  Gvanfje  (3  John.  199)  824 

Jacobus  V.  Jacobus  (20  N.  J.  Kq.  49)  35.j 

r.  Jacobus  (37  N.J.  Va\.  17)  711 

Jacot  I'.  Emmet  (11  I'ai.  142)  1137 

Jacquin  v.  Huisson  (11  How.  I'r.  385)  282,  283 

V.  Davidson  (49  111.  82)  83G 

Jaggers  v.  Estes  (2  Strobh.  Eq.  343)  Gl 

Jahier  v.  Kascoe  ^G2  Miss.  G99)  379 

Jahns  V.  Nolthifj  (29  Cal.  507)  G20 

Jakolete  v.  Danielson  (13  Atl.  8.50)  1218 

Jalliffe  r.  Fannint;  (10  Rich.  180)  .502 

James's  Estate  (23  Cal.  415)  214,  1075 

Estate  (65  Cal.  2.5)  1008,1010 

James  v.  A.lams  (22  How.  Pr.  409)      564,  .563 

V.  Christy  (18  Mo.  162)  620 

r.  Dixon"  (21  Mo.  .538)  231,  5.59 

r.  Dunstan  (38  Kan.  289)  269 

V.  Kaulk  (54  Ala.  184)  10.55 

V.  Hacklev  (16  John.  273)  7.36 

v.  James  (55  Ala.  ,52-0  1083 

r.  James  (76  N.  C.  331)  1217 

r.  Marcus  (18  .\rk.  421)  231 

V.  Marvin  (3  Conn.  576)  100 

r.  Matthews  (5  Ircd.  Eq.  28)  1132 

V.  Wingo  (7  Lea,  148)  677 

V.  Withinton  (7  Mo.  App.  575)  1132 

Jameson  r.  Hall  (37  Md.  221)  468 

I.  Martin  (3  J.  J.  Marsh.  3-30)  792 

Jamison  c.  Jamison  (-J  Houst.  108)  36 

V.  Mil  ird  (12  Lea,  690)  1180 

V.  Mav  (13  Ark.  600)  607 

Janes  v.  IJrnwn  (48  Iowa,  568)  1267 

V.  Throckmorton  (57  Cal.  368)  727 

V.  Williams  ;31  Ark.  175)  .501 

Janin  v.  Browne  (59  Cal.  .37)  680,  687 

Jansen  e.  Biirv  (Bunb.  157)  148 

Janssen  v.  Wemple  (3  Redf.  229)  3;i2 

Jaques  r.  Horton  (76  Ala.  2-38)       89,  92,  480, 

483,  495 

Jarman  v.  Jarman  (4  Lea,  671)    205,  212,  268 

V.  Vve  (L.  R.  2  Eq.  784)  881 

Jarnigan  r.  Janiigan  (12  Lea,  292)  128 

Jarvis  v.  Quiglev  (10  B.  Men.  104)  901 

V.  Russick  ("12  Mo.  63)  10.57 

Jauncev  v.  Thorne  (2  Barb.  Ch.  40)  473 

Jayiie  v.  Boisgerard  (39  Miss.  796)  1080 

Jell'ersonville  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Hendricks  (41 

Ind.  48)  6.30 

V.  Swavne  (26  Ind.  477)  440,  581 

Jeffs  I'.  Wood  (2  P.  Wms.  128)  1237 

Jelks  V.  Barrett  (52  Miss.  315)  724.  1037,  1082 

Jelly  r.  Elliott  (1  Ind.  119)  186 

Jeuiison  v.  Gaston  (31  Ark.  74)  1047 

Jenckes  i'.  Smithticid  (2  R.  I.  255)  34 

Jenison  v.  Hapuood  (7  Pick.  1)  1122 

Jenkins's  Wiir(43  Wis.  610)  475 

Jenkins  r.  Drane  (121  III.  217)  ^r,l^ 

V.  French  (58  N.  H.  532)  617,  f;25 

V.  FVever  (4  Pai.  47)  8)6 

V.  Gaisford  (3  Sw.  &  Tr.  93)  G3 

VOL.   I.—/ 


Jenkins  r.  Hall  (4  Jones  Eq.  .334) 
r.  Ilanahan  (2  Cheves,  12i)) 
c.  Holt  (109  Mass.  261) 
r.  .Icnkins  (2  Dana,  102) 
V.  Jenkins  (63  Ind.  120) 
V.  Jenkins  (96  N.  C.  254) 
V.  Long  (23  Ind.  460) 
V.  Stetson  (9  Allen,  128) 
V.  Tucker  (1  H.  Bl.  90) 
V.  Wood  (134  Mass.  115) 
Young  (35  Hun,  569 


Pafffi 

8!J8 

966 

264 

224 

821,  805 

900 

336 

69 

762 

435 

1029,  1031,  1037 


Jenks  V.  Houland  (3  Gray,  .536)  1245 

r.  Terrell  (73  Ala.  2.!8)  1152,  11.55 

V.  Trowbridge  (48  Mich.  94)  145 

Jenness  v.  Carleton  (40  Mieh.  343)  281 

V.  Robinson  (10  N.  H.  215)  1033 

Jennings  r.  Copeland  (90  N.  C.  572)         1143 

V.  Davis  (31  Conn.  1.34)  G12 

V.  Jenkins  (9  Ala.  285)  1043 

V.  Jennings  (21  Oh.  St.  ,56)  273 

r.  Monks  (4  Met.  Kv.  103)  622 

1'.  Teatrue  (14  S.C.  229)  719 

JemiisoiLf.  Hapgood  (10  Pick.  77)    7G1,  1151 

1152,  11.59.  1163,1164 

Jermain  r.  Lake  S.  R.  R.  (91  N.  Y.  483)  1004 

Jesse  V.  Parker  (0  Grat.  57)  71 

Jessup  I'.  Smuch  (16  Pa.  St.  327)  9.50 

Jeter  v.  Barnard  (42  Ga.  4.3)  356 

1'.  Tucker  (1  S.  (\  245)  42 

Jett  V.  Bernard  (3  Call,  11)  988 

Jewett  )•.  .lewett  (10  (Jrav,  31)  lOoO 

r.  Weaver  (10  Mo.  234)  620.  815 

Jiggitts  V.  Bennett  (31  Miss.  610)  347 

'  V.  Jiggitts  (40  Miss.  718)  247,  259 

Jinkins  v.  Sapp  (3  Jones,  510)  579 

Jocelyn  v.  Nott  (44  Conn.  55)  920 

Jochiimsen-y.  Suffolk  Sav.  Bank  (3  Allen, 

87  448,  450,  453 

Johannes  r".  Y'oungs  (45  Wis.  445)  1120 

John  V.  Bradbury  (97  Ind.  203)  948,  949 

V.  Tate  (7  Humph.  388)  1149 

Johns  r.  Caldwell  (00  Md.  259)  1195 

r.  Fenton  (88  Mo.  64)  258,  274 

V.  Hod-es  (00  Md.  215)  3.50 

V.  Hodges  (02  Md.  .525)  468 

V.  Norris  (22  N.  J.  Eq.  102)  1085 

r.  Norris  (27  N.  J.  Eq.  485)  1085 

Johnson's  Appeal  (88  Pa.  St.  346)  140 

Estate  (57  Cal.  529)  38,  40 

Estate  (:Myr.  5)  79 

Est.ite  (ll'Phila.83)  1189 

Will  (40  Conn.  .587)  90,  481,  491 

Johnson  v.  Ames  (0  Pick.  3.30)  286 

r.  Ames  (11  Pick.  173)  646 

r.  P.aker  (2Car.  &  P.  207)  701 

r.  Baker  (3  Murphv.olS)  941 

V.  Beardslee  (15  John.  3)  730 

V.  Beazlev  (65  Mo.  250)        325,  330,  439, 

1054,  1080 

V.  Belden  (20  Conn.  322)  1216,  1218,1223 

V.  Brady  (24  (Ja.  131)  041,  774 

V.  Brailsford  (2  Nott  &  IMcC.  272)         90 

V.  Bridgewater  Manuf.  Co.  (14  Gray, 

r4) 


633 
811 
556,  10.30 
1044 
173,  18-3,  180. 
738,  1156,  1158 
V.  Corpenning  (4  Ired.  Eq.  216)  571 

V.  Gushing  (is  N.  H.  298)  656 


V.  Brown  (2.5*  Tex.  120) 
r.  Clark  (18  Kan.  1.57) 
V.  Collins  (12  Ala.  322) 
r.  Corbett  (11  Pai.  265) 


Ixxxii 


TABLE   OF   CASES. 


Ji.hn'^on  i\  Dunn  (fi  Grat.  C25) 
V.  Farrell  (G-4  N .  C.  260) 
V.  Frv  (1  Cdldw.  101) 
V.  Inuiuav  (I  Dana,  514) 
,?.  GaithJr  (Harp.  U) 
■».  Gavloid  (-il  I""':''  '^*'2) 
V.  Giriett(5-2  HI.  358) 
«.  Goss  (128  Mass.  433) 
V.  Hamilton  2  La.  An.  206) 
V.  Harrison  (41  Wis.  381) 
V.  Henagan  (11  S.  C.  93) 
V.  Henrv  (12  Heisk.  6%) 
V.  Hogan  (37  Tex.  77) 
V.  HoliHeld  (79  Ala.  423) 
V.  Hoi i field  (82  Ala.  123) 
V.  HoHidav  (68  Ga.  81) 
r.  Hovle  (3  Head,  56) 
V.  Hubbell  (10  N.  J.  Kq.  332) 
V.  Jackson  (-56  Ga.  326) 
V.  .Tolmson  (40  Ala.  247) 
V.  Johnson  (4  Beav.  318) 
V.  Johnson  (2  Harr.  273) 
■P.Johnson  (106  Ind.  475) 
V.  Johnson  (1  McM.  Eq.  34-0 ) 
V.  Johnson  (23  Mo.  561) 
V.  Johnson  (:iOxMo.72) 


728 


Vn'if 

472 

1104 

472 

549,  554 

419 

200,  1077 

789,  821 

96( 

1054 

203,  211 

1145,  1148 

187 

7 15,  749 

921,  934 

944,  946 

lo;i4 

12  i  8 

58 

371 

331,  10.34 

883 

1190 

68 

897 

264 

224 


Jon 


Page 

,es  r.  Chase  (55  N..  H.  234)  054 

,-.  Ches.&O.  K.R.  (14W.Va.514)  953 

,■.  Clifton  (101  U.  S.  225)  «  0 

r.  (■ole(2lJai.  330)  81« 

V.  Commercial  Hank  (78  Ky.  413)      1267 
V.  Coon  (5  Sm.  &  M.  751  '^26,  -i-K) 

v.  Creveling  (19  N.  J.  L.  127)     969,  970, 


V.  Johnson  (26  Oh.  St.  3.57)  331,  332, 11-0 

V.  Johnson  (15  K.  I.  109)  5  6 

r.  Johnson  (5  S.  K  K.  620)  <13 

V.  Johnson  (41  Vt4(J7)  17-.  1.8 

V.  Johnstone  (12  Kich.  Eq.  2y9) 

V.  Lawrence  (95  N.  \  ■  154) 

V.  Longmire  (39  .\la.  143) 

V.  Mavne  (4  Iowa,  180) 

V.  Mei-ithew  (13  Atl.  132) 

V.  Miller  (33  Miss.  553) 

V.  Patterson  (13  Lea,  626) 

V.  Perkins  (1  Baxt.  367) 

V.  Robertson  (7  Blackf.  425) 

V.  Sharp  (4  Coldw.  45) 

V.  Smith  (1  Ves.  Sen.  314) 

V.  Valentine  (4  Sandf.  .36) 

V.  Van  Velsor  (43  Mich.  208) 
V.  Von  Kettler  (66  111.  63) 

t>.  Waters  (111  U.  S.  640) 

V.  Wells  (2  Hagg.  561) 
Johnston's  Estate  (9  W   cV  S.  107) 
Johnston  v.  Davenport  (42  Ala.  -ii-l) 

V.  Duncan  (07  Ga.  61) 

V.  Fort  (30  Ala.  78) 

V.  Glasscock  (2  Ala.  218) 

V.  Johnston  (1  Phillim.  447) 

V.  Lewis  (Hice  Eq.  40) 

r.  Morrow  (28  X.J.  Eq.  327) 

V.  Smith  (25  Hun,  171) 

V.  Spicer  (107  N.  Y.  185) 

r.  Tatum  (20  Ga.  775) 

V.  Thompson  (5  Call.  248) 

V.  Turner  (29  Ark.  280) 

V.  Vandyke  (6  McLean,  422) 


905 

1175 

351 

929 

445,  447,  832 

1139 

1214,  1218 

1079 

190 

28 

125, 126 

949 

2.53,  275  I 

866,  1249 

845 


Jnllv  V.  Lofton  (61  Ga.  1-54) 
Jones's  Accounting  (103  Is.  \  .  621) 
Appeal  (3  Grant  Cas.  169) 
Appeal  (8  W.  &  S.  143) 
Jones,  In  re  (1  Redf.  263) 
V.  Bacon  (68  Me.  34) 
V.  Barrett  (-30  Tex.  6-37) 
V.  Bittinger  (110  Ind.  476) 
„.  Brown  (34  N.  H.  4-39) 


V.  Caperton  (15  La.  An.  475) 


106 

698 

180' 

269 

1197 

499 

105 

7.50 

68 

441.  461 

608,  642 

3;»6 

7241 

208 

241,  242, 

261 

215 

68:) 

8 

7.38 

867,  11'' 

948 

140 

531 

118,  121,  123 


971 

390 

1239 

122,  685 

12)8 

96 

833 

242.  2.53 

1062,  1080 

720 

::G;ah;^^^^6i;k.w^;o^,ii2MiS 

V.  Habersham  (107  U.  S.  1  -  4)  911,  920 

V.  Hart  (62  Miss.  13)  200 

V.  Hartlcv  (2  Whart.  103)  86 

V.  Head  (1  La.  An.  200)  10' 7 

V.  Hooper  (2  Dem.  14)  34 J 

V.  Hughes  (27  Grat.  550)  ^'^ 

r..Jonls(.i7Ala.646)  940 

V  Jones  (42  Ala.  218)  1049,  1197 
Jones   28  Ark.  19)    22.3,  2,59,  260, 124< 


V.  Davies  (5  H.  &  N.  766) 

r.  Dexter  (8  E la.  276) 

V.  Oever  (16  Ala.  221) 

t.  Dver  (20  Ala.  373) 

r.  Earle  (1  Gill,  395) 

t.  East  Soc.  (21  Barb.  161) 

v.  Fleming  (104  N.  Y.  418) 

V.  French  (92  Ind.  138) 

r.  Fulghum  (3  Tenn   Ch.  193) 

v.  (iofdon  (2  Jones  Eq.  352) 


87 

1120 

64,  78 

873 

1213 

829 

898 

840 

526,  556 

245 

729 


V.  Jones  (2  Dev.  Eq.  387) 
r.  Jones  (41  Md.  354) 
V.  Jnnes  (3  Met.  Ky.  266) 
V.  Jones  (25  Mich.  401) 
V.  Jones  (2  Murphy,  1.^0) 
r.  Jones  (21  N.H.  219) 
,;.  Jones  (13  N.J.  Eq.  236) 

V.  Jones  (41  Oh.  St.  417) 

V.  Jones  (12  Rich.  623) 

r.  Jones  (64  Wis.  301) 

V.  Jones  (66  Wis.  310) 

V.  Jukes  (2  Ves.  518) 

V.  Keep  (23  Wis.  45) 

V.  Lackland  (2  Grat.  81) 

V.  Le  Baron  (3  Dem.  37) 

V.  Lightfoot(10  Ala.  17) 

r.  Lock  (L.  R.  1  Ch.  App.  25) 

V.  IVIcLellan  (76  Me.  49) 

V.  McNeill  (1  Hill  S.  C.  84) 

V.  Manlv  (58  Mo.  559)  25 

V.  Mason  (5  Rand.  577)  9 

V.  Mitchell  (1  Sim.  &  Stu.  290) 

11  IMoroan  (6  La.  An.  630) 

::Murphv  (8  Watts&S.275)  98,481,483 

V.  Oliver -(3  Ired.  Eq.  369)  904 


842 

647 

1151 

805 

122 

490 

694 

1060 

1,  980 

944 

609 


287 


Perrv  (10  Yerg.  59) 
v.  Price  (3  Des.  165) 
r.  Reid(12  W.  Va.350) 
V.  Richardson  (5  Met.  247) 
V.  Ritter  (-56  Ala.  270) 
V.  Robinscm  (78  N.  C  396) 
V.  Selbv  (Prec.  Ch.  300) 
V.  Shevvmaker  (35  Ga.  151) 
,,.  StitesdON.  J.  Eq.  324) 
V.  Swift  (12  Ala.  144) 
V.  Tavlor  (7  Tex.  240) 
V.  Tibbetts  (75  Me.  572) 
V.  Walker  (103  U.  S.  444) 
V.  Ward  (10  Yerg.  160) 
v.  Warnock  (67  Ga.  484) 
V.  Wilkinson  (3  Stew.  44) 
V.  Williams  (Amb.  651) 
V.  Williams  (2  Call,  102) 


1038 

942 

Gil 

435,  664 

549 

878,  884 

123,  126 

86 

999 

1241 

1067 

76 

689 

1139,  1153 

1077 

791 

919 

1159 


TABLE   OF   CASES. 


Ixxxiii 


Jordan  v.  Ball  (44  Miss.  194)       51G,  530,  5:il 
r.  Hniwn  (72  (la.  4;).-))  »44 

r.  Clark  (Ui  X.  .1.  Va\.  243)  lOOi) 

V.  Imtluini  (.Jl  Tc.\.  270)  J'-tH 

r.  Jordan  (G-J  Ala.  301)  (il» 

V.  I'olk  (1  SncLil.  430)  400 

V.  I'ollnck  (14  (la.  145)  G72 

V.  Strickland  (42  Ala.  315)  2](! 

Joseph,  (J Is  of  (1  Curt.  'J07)  41)(; 

e.  Mott  (I'riT.  Cii.  79)  785 

Joslin  r.  Couiclilin  (20  IMiss.  134)         694,  690 

Jourdan  v.  Jourdan  (1(  S.  .&  K.  208)  252 

Jovce  V.  Hamilton  (111  Ind.  1G3)     1214,  1219, 

1224 

Jovner  v.  Cooper  (2  Bai.  199)  5.50,  553 

Ju"lnv  of  I'robate  v.  Claggctt  (36  N.  H. 
381) 

Judsun  r.  Connollv  (4  La.  An.  169) 

v.  (Jil)bons  (5  Wend.  224)      512,  513 
r.  Lake  (3  bav,  318) 

Judv  V.  (iilbert  (77  Ind.  96) 
"r.  IvelK'v(ll  III.  211) 

Julian  r.  Ab'hott  (73  Mo.  580) 
V.  Itevnolds  (8  Ala.  68.)) 
V.  VViightsman  (73  Mo.  569) 


Julke  I'.  Adam  (1  Redf.  454) 
Junk  V.  Canon  (34  Pa.  St.  280) 
Justice  r.  Lee  (1  T.  B.  Mon.  247) 
Justices  V.  Sloan  (7  Ga.  31) 


553 

631 

720 

32!) 

8;)2 

361,  849 

llo8 

371 

177,  187, 

293,  1139 

40 

230 

1071 

793 


Kaes  V  Gross  (92  Mo.  647)  199,  212,  2G8 

Kaiui's  Kstate  (18  .Mo.  App.  426)  297 

Kalm  V.  Tinder  (77  Ind.  147)  423 

Kaiine  v.  llartv  (73  .Mu.  310)  730 

Kain  v.  l'ishcr'(6  N.  Y.  597)         597,  598,  599 

r.  Gibboncv  ( 101  U.  S.  362)    920,  928,  932 

V.  Masterson  (16  N.  Y.  174)  lOGl 

Kaminer  v.  Hope  (9  S.  C.  2.53)  401 

Kane,  Matter  of  (2  Barb.  Ch.  375)  1013 

V.  BloodfTood  (7  John.  Ch.  89)  1247 

V   De.smoiid  (03  Cal.  404)  009 

V.  Gott  (24  Wend.  041)  884 

Kansas  City  v.  Clark  (08  Mo.  588)  1199 

Kansas  Pacific  K.  R.  c.  Cutter  (16  Kan. 

568)  308, 630 

Kapp  V.  Public  Administrator  (2  Bradf. 

2.58)  167,  184,  768 

Karl  r.  Black  (2  Pittsb.  19)  826 

Karr  r.  Karr  (0  Dana,  3)  1137 

Karrick  v.  Pratt  (4  Greene,  Iowa,  144)       369, 

492 
Kaster  v.  Raster  C  2  Ind.  531)  481 

Kauffelt  V.  Leber  (9  Watt.s  &  S.  93)  1006 

Kauffman  v.  Peaco  k  (115  111.  212)  237 

Kaufman's  Appeal  (112  Pa.  St.  045)  176,  177 
Kaufman  v.  Breckenridse  (117  111.  305)  729 
Kauz  V.  Order  of  Red  Men  (13  Mo.  App. 

341)  445 

Kavanaejh  v.  Wilson  (5  Redf.  43)  1038 

Kavanaugh  v.  Thompson  (IG  Ala.  817)     577, 

695,  702 
Kavenangh  v.  Thacker  (2  Dana,  137)  1235 
Kean  v.  Welch  (1  Grat.  403)  1221 

Keane's  Estate  (50  Cal.  407)  531,  1197 

Kearnev  r.  Sascer  (37  M<1.  2G4)  797 

V.  Turner  (28  Md.  408)  5.!8 

Kearns  v.  Cunniff  (1.58  Mass.  434)  2.V.) 

V.  Kearns  (4  Harr.  83)  98,  480,  48:! 

Keatoa  v.  Campbell  (2  Hmnph.  224)  3G9 


Page 
Kee  V.  Kep.  '2  Grat.  116)  684,  1120 

t'.  Vas.ser  (2  Ircil.  V.i\.  5.53)  Oil 

Keef,  Matter  of  (43  Hun,  98)  1230 

Keefcr  v.  Schwartz  (47  Pa.  St.  .503)  722 

Keegan  v.  Gevafrbtv  (101  III.  20)  140 

Kcehin  v.  Fries  (5  Jones  Eii-  273)  10;.8 

Keenan  r.  .Saxton  (13  Oh.  41)  804 

Keene's  Ai)peal  (00  Pa.  St.  504)  1190 

Keene  v.  Munn  (10  N.  J.  Va\.  398)  1 105 

Keese  v.  Coleman  (72  Ga.  658)  288,  293 

Kecsue  I.-.  Beckwith  (32   lex.  731)  812 

Kcigwin  V.  Keigwin  (3  Curt.  607)  70 

Kcim  V.  Muhlenberg  (7  Watts,  79)  1236 

Keith  I'.  JolJv  (26  Miss.  131)  1228 

V.  Parks' (31  Ark.  064)  775,  781 

Kell  r.  Charmer  (23  Beav.  195)  62 

Kcllar  V.  Beelor  (5  T.  B.  .Mon.  573)  639,  648 

Kcllbcrg's  Appeal  (80  Pa.  St.  129)  573 

Kflleher  v.  Kernan  (00  Md.  440)  54 

Keller  v.  Harper  (04  Md.  94)  726,  727 
Kellctt  V.  Katlibun  (4  Pai.  102)  1126,  1128 
Kcllev's  Estate  (1  Abb.  New  Cas.  102)    1021, 

1059 

Kellej'  V.  :Mann  (56  Iowa,  625)  647 

V.  Meins  (135  Mass.  231)  951 

V.  Kilev  (106  Mass.  339)  675 

r.  Vigas  (112  III.  242)  902 

Kellogg,  In  re  (104  N.  Y.  648)         1155,  1209 

Matter  of  (7  Pai.  2G5)  1176 

r.  Graves  (5  Ind.  609)  177 

V.  Malin  (02  Mo.  429)  621 

V.  Mix  (37  Conn.  243)  880 

I'.  Wiicocks  (2  John.  1)  621 

f.  Wilson  (89  111.3.57)  1058 

Kellow  V.  Central  Hailwav  (68  Iowa,  470)    622 

Kellum's  Will  (.50  N.  Y."2:i8)  499 

Kellum,  In  re  (52  N.  Y.  517)  475 

Kellv's  Estate  (57  Cal.  81)  399 

"Estare  (11  Phila.  100)  1041 

Kelly  V.  Karsner  (72  Ala.  lO'))  1218 

V.  .^IcGrath  (70  Ala.  75)  245 

V.  Miller  (39  Miss.  17)  76 

V.  Itevnolds  (39  Mich.  464)  871 

V.  Settegast  (68  Tex.  13)  50,  12i)8 

V.  Stinson  (8  Blackf.  387)  883 

V.  West  (80  N.  Y.  139)         531,  564,  1182 

Kelsev  v.  Devo  (3  Cow.  133)  1098 

t'".  Hardv  (20  N.  II.  479)  151 

r.  Jewett  (34  Hun,  11)  676 

V.  Kelsev  (57  Iowa,  383)  499 

V.  Smith  (1  How.  Miss.  68)  744 

Kelso's  Appeal  (102  Pa.  St.  7)  240 

Kclton  V.  Hill  (58  Me.  114)  830,  832 

Kenipi-.  Cook  (18  Md.  130)  336 

V.  Kemp  (42  Ga.  523)  2  )3 

r.  Kennedy  (Pet.  C.  C.  30)  324 

Kemper  c.  Kemper  (1  Duv.  401)  125 

Kcmpsev  r.  McGinni-s  (21  Mich.  1-23)        480 

Kempton,  Appellant  (23  Pick.  163)  273 

r.  Swiff  (2  Met.  70)  394 

Kendal!  r.  BUes  (35  Mc  357)  685,  811 

V    Kenilail  (5  Munf.  272)  87,113 

V.  .Mondrll  (67  Md.  444)  149,  1210 

V.  New  England  Co.  (13  Conn.  383)  1103 

V.  Powers  (4  Met.  Mass.  553)  336 

r.  Russell  (3  Sim.  424)  996 

Kendrick,  In  re  (107  N.  Y.  104)  844 

Kenebel  r.  Scrafton  (2  East.  530)  106 

Kenlev  r.  Brvan  (110  111.  6.52)  1043,  1072 

Kennedv's  Appeal  (4  Pa.  Sr.  149)  843 

KennedV,  In  re  (2  S.  C.  216)  195 


Ixxziv 


TABLE   OF   CASES. 


Pagn 
Keuned^'  v.  Johnston  (65  Pa.  St.  451)        270, 

271,  .T;! 

V.  Kennedy  (8  Ala.  391)  374 

f.  Wachsnuith  (12  S.  &  K.  171)  3;J1 

KenniM-lv  v.  Mo.  Ims.  Cd.  (11  Mo.  204)       242 

V.  W'ilson  (1  Md.  102)  U2l 

Kenney  v.  I'uMic  Adm'r  (2  Bradf.  319)      124 

Kenny  r.  Udall  (5  .John.  Cli.  404)  1015 

Kenrick  v.  Bni'j^us  (Moore,  12(1)  410 

V.  Cole  (40  Mo.  8.3)  469,  502 

V.  Cole  (01  Mo.  572)  485 

Kent  V.  Dunham  (100  Mass.  580)    1005,  1008, 

1010.  1012,  1014,  1247 

V.  Dunliam  (142  Mass.  210)  920,  921,  922 

V.  Waters  (1  .Md.  5J)  1030 

Kenyon  v.  Stewart  (44  I'a.  St.  179)  502 

Kepiinger  v.  Maccubbin  (58  Md.  203)         718 

Ker  V.  Kuxton  (10  Jur.  491)  1232 

Kernochan,  In  re  (104  N.  Y.  G18)  1004,  1138, 

1174 

Kerns  v.  Soxman  (16  Sercf.  &  R.  315)  75 

V.  Wallace  (64  N.  C.187)  699 

Kerr  v.  Hosier  (02  Pa.  St.  183)  1008 

V.  Donf;liertv  (79  N.  Y.  327)  273,  944 

V.  Hill  (3  D'esans.  279)  1154 

V.  Kerr  (41  N.  Y.  272)  571 

«'.  Kirkpatrick  (Sired.  Eq   137)  738 

V.  Moore  (9  Wheat.  505)        358,  378,  502 

V.  Waters  (19  Ga.  13(i)  738 

V.  Wniier  (40  Mo.  544)  775,  776 

Kernck  v.  Bransbv  (2  Eq.  Cas.  Abr.  421, 

Pl-  4)  "  587 

Kersey  v.  Bailev  (52  Me.  108)  105 

Kershaw  v.  Kershaw  (102  111.  307)    150,  1220, 

1223 
Kessinger  v.  Kessinger  (37  Ind.  341)  48 

Ketchuni  v.  Stearns  (8  Mo.  App.  00)  04 

Kevil  V.  Kevil  (2  Bush,  014)  48 

Key  V.  Hollowav  (7  Baxt  575)  39 

'  V.  Jones  (52  Ala.  238)     1166,  1213,  1215, 

1246 

Keves  v.  Bump  (59  Vt.  391)  199 

V.  Hill  (30  Vt.  7.59)  202 

«,  Scanlan  (63  Wis.  345)  204,  213 

Kevser  v.  Fendall  (5  Mackev,  47)  070 

"  V.  Kelly  (11,1.  &  S.  22)  803 

Keyte  v.  Perry  (25  Mo.  App.  394)  203 

Kidd's  Estate  (Mvr.  239)  555 

Kidd  V.  Guibar  (63  Mo.  342)  1120 

Kiddall  v.  Trimble  (I  Md.  Ch.  143)  274 

Kidder's  Estate  (57  Cal.  282)  489 

Estate  (66  Cal.  487)  482 

Kidney  v.  Coussmaker  (12  Ves.  136)  1017 

Kidwe'll  V.  Brummasrim  (32  Cal.  436)         393 

V.  Kidwell  (84  Ind.  224)  599 

Kiff  V.  Weaver  (94  N.  C.  274)  117 

Kilby  V.  Godwin  (2  Del.  Cli.  61)  122 

Kilcfease  v.  Shelby  (23  Miss.  161)    43.3,  1231 

Kile's  Estate  (72  Cal.  131)  ]207 

Kilfoy  r.  Powers  (3  Dem.  198)  22 

Killam  r.  Costlev  (52  Ala.  85)  580 

Killcrease  v.  Killcrease   (7   How.  Jliss. 

311)  54(1,  639 

Killebre-w  v  Murphy  (3  IJeisk.  540)  410 

Killigrewv.  KiUitrrew  (1  Vern.  184)  509 

Kiilinger  v.  Reidenhauer  (6  Serg.  &  R. 

531)  ^  247 

Killmer  r.  Wuchner  (37  N.  W.  R.,  Iowa. 
^  ""8)  874  9.55 

Killpatrick  v.  Helston  (25  111.  App.  12r)    824 
Kilpatrick  v.  Bush  (23  Miss.  199)  366 


PaRB 

Kilpatrick  v.  Johnson  (15  N.  Y.  322)  918 

Kiuiball's  Appeal  (45  Wis.  391)  573 

Kimball  v.  Adams  (5i  Wis.  554)  604 

V.  Doming  (5  Ired.  L.  418)     170,  178.  186 

V.  Fi>k  (39  N.  H.  llOi  330,  342,  1089 

V.  Kimball  (19  Vt.  .579)  (i82 

V.  Lincoln  (99  III.  578)  2:tl 

V.  I'enhallow  (60  N.  II.  448)  916 

r.  Story  (108  Mass.  382)  9.3(] 

V.  Sumner  (62  Me.  305)     636,  1143,  1151, 

1152 
Knnbrough  v.  Mitchell  (1  Head,  539)  023 
Kinun  v.  Osgood  (19  Mo.  60)  807 

Kinunell  v.  Burns  (84  Ind.  370)  801 

Kinard  v.  Riddlehoover  (3  Rich.  258)  408,  500 


Young  (2  Hich.  Eq.  247) 
Kincade  v.  Conley  (04  N.  C.  387) 
Kincaid,  In  re  ( 1  'Drew.  320) 
Kincheloe  v.  Gorman  (29  Mo.  421) 
Kmg's  Appeal  (84  Pa.  St.  345) 

Will  (13  Phila.  .379) 
King  V.  Anderson  (20  Ind.  385) 
V.  Beck  (15  Ohio,  599) 
V.  Bennett  (4  M.  &  W.  36) 
V.  Boyd(4  Oreg.  .326) 
V.  Busluiell  (121  111.  656) 
V.  Cabiness  (12  Ala.  598) 
V.  Clarke  (2  Hill  Ch.  611) 
V.  Collins  (21  Ala.  363) 
V.  Cooper  (Walk.  Miss.  359) 
V.  Davis  (91  N.  C.  142) 
V.  Foscue  (91  N.  0.  116) 


422. 


423 

738 

1015 
809 
164 

1194 
637 
901 
889 
712,  714 
235 

1186 
360,  361,  632 

1127 
990 
112 
599 


Gridley  (37  N.  W.  R.  50)       1193,  1201 
V.  Kent  (29  Ala.  542)  329,  694,  1030, 

1041,  1045 
r.  King  (3  John.  Ch.  5:2)  10G4 

V.  King  (13  R.  I.  501)  720,  727,  728 

r.  Lacey  (8  Conn.  499)  1208 

V.  Lastrapes  (13  La.  An.  582)  564 

V.  Lvman  (1  Root,  104)  416 

V.  Merritt  (34  N.  W.  R.G89)  259 

V.  Mittalberger  (50  Mo.  182)  817 

V.  Morris  (40  Ga.  63)  776 

V.  Morrison  (1  Pa.  188)  079 

V.  Parker  (9  Cush.  71)  933 

V.  Rockhill  (41  N.  J.  F:q.  273)  1197,  1193 
V.  St.  Dunstan  (4  B.  &  C.  450)  602 

V.  Shackleford  (13  Ala.  435)  1180 

V.  Talbert  (30  Miss.  367)  392,  393 

V.  Talbot  (40  N   Y.  70)  1007 

V.  Thorn  (1  T.  R.  487)  734 

r.  Wear  (53  Iowa,  97)  159 

V.  Whiton  (15  Wis.  384)  1153 

Kingman  v.  Higgins  (100  III.  319)  199 

V.  Kingman  (31  N.  H.  182)  169, 189 

V.  Soulo  (1-32  Mass.  285)  757 

Kingsbury  v.  Scoville  (20  Conn.  349)        1239 
V.  Whittaker  (32  La.  An.  1055)  34 

V.  Wild  (3  N.  H.  .30)  1047,1067 

V.  Wilmarth  (2  Allen,  310)     176,  177,  768 
Kingsland  v.  Hapelve  (3  lulw.  Ch.  1)         903 
V.  Scudiler  (36  N.  J.  Eq.  224)  1148 

Kinleside  v.  Harrison  (2  Phillim.  449)  40,  46, 

476 
Kinmonth  v.  Brigham  (5  Allen,  270)  706 

Kiunan  v.  Wight  (39  N.  J.  Eq.  501)   808,  810, 

11.55 
Kinne  v.  Kinne  (9  Conn.  102)  32,  43 

Kinnemon  r.  Miller  (2  Md.  Ch.  407)  6-32 

Kinney  r.  Ensign  (18  Pick.  232)  1141 

Kinsey  v.  Rhem  (2  Ired.  192)  893 


TABLE   OF   CASES. 


Ixxxv 


Pafje 

Kinsoy  v.  Woodw.ard  (3  Ilarr.  459)  207 

Kiii>ler  V.  Holmes  (2  S.  C.  483)  1142 

Kiiisolviiis  V.  I'ierce  (18  B.  Mon.  782)  274 

KiutcT'.s  ApiK'al  ((i2  Ta.  Si.  318)  1130 

Kiiitz  r.  Kridav  (4  Dtni.  540)  1218 

Kip  r.  Van  Cortiaii.l  (7  Hill,  346)  113 

Kipp  r.  Hauiia  (2  Hlaiul  Cli.  'M)  fiOit 

Kirby's  A])pc'al  (101)  I'a.  St   41)  1220 

Kirbv,  Goods  of  (1  Kob.  709)  02 

V.  I.ake  S.  K.  K.  (120  U.  S.  130)  844 

V.  State  (51  Md.  383)  391,1179 

V.  Tiinier  (Hopkins  Cli.  309)  558 

V.  Vantree  (20  Ark.  308)  2:i0 

Kirciidhri-lit  r.  Kircudbnj;lit  (8  Ves.  51)  1217 


Ki 


Ki 


4u8 
475 
8j7 
635 
981 
923 
12o0 
8.J5 


198 
953 

704 


io;).i 

1228  I 
8:i8  1 

1103  j 
0(,8  I 

]2o8  I 
4!l 


48,  4,)0 

181 

I0(i3 

480 


Bowliny;  (20  Neb.  200) 

V.  Can-  (54  Ta.  St.  285) 

V.  Cashman  (3  Deni.  242) 

V.  I)u  15ois  (28  Fed.  \l  400) 

r.  Kddowes  (3  Ilaie,  509; 

v.  KiMn  (3  Pa.  St.  430) 

uMidairs  Kstate  (43  Wis.  167) 
Kirkland  v.  Conwav  (110  LI.  438) 

V.  Cox  (94  111.  400) 

r.  Little  (41  Tex.  450) 

?•.  Nari'aniore  (105  Mass.  31) 
Kirkiuau  r.  lienham  (28  Ala.  501) 
Kirkpatrick's  Will  (22  N.  J.  Eq.  403)  93,  509 

51; 
Kirkpatrick  r.Chesnut  (5  S.  C  210) 

V.  Gibson  (2  Brock.  388) 

V.  Ro£cer.s  (6  L-ed.  Eq.  130) 

V.  Rogers  (7  Ired.  Eq.44) 
Kirksev  v.  Kirksev  (30  Ga.  156) 
Kirtland  v.  Davis  (43  Ga.  318) 
Kirwan  v.  Cullen  (4  Ir.  Cli.  N.  s.  322) 
Kissel  V.  Eaton  (04  Lid.  248) 
Kitcliell  V.  Beach  (35  N.J.  Eq.  440) 

V.  Burgwin  (21  III.  40) 

V.  Jackson  (44  Ala   302) 
Kitchens  v.  Kitcliens  (39  (ia.  108) 
Kittora's  Estate  (17  I'a.  St.  410)  344,  843,  859 
Kittredge  v.  Folsoiu  (8  N.  H.  98)  410,  508,  571, 

804 

V.  Woods  (3  N.  H.  503)  597,  003 

Kleberg  v    Bonds  (31  Tex.  611)  699 

Klein  V.  French  (57  Miss.  602)  .30.3,  366,  367 
Kleppner  v.  Lavertv  {70  Pa.  St.  70)  901,  903 
Kline's  Appeal  (39  Pa.  St.  463)  1033 

Appeal  (117  Pa.  St.  139)        269,  985,  1102 
Kline  v.  Moulton  (11  Mich.  370)  712 

Klostermann,  In  re  (6  Mo.  App   314)  172 

Klotz  V.  Macreadv  (39  La.  An.  638)  284,  2.11 
Kiiapp  V.  Lee  (42"Mich.  41)  307 

V.  Me  Bride  (7  Ala.  19)  281 

V   ReiUv  (3  Deni.  427)  GO 

Knatchbuiry.  Fearnhead    (3  Mvl.  &  Cr. 

122) 
Knuclitu.  United  States  Sav.  Inst.  (  2  Mo. 

App.  503) 
Knight  V.  Davis  (3  Mvl.  &  K.  358) 

V.  Godbolt  (7  Ala.  304)  788 

V.  Havnie  (74  Ala  542) 

V.  Knight  (27  Ga.  033) 

V.  Kniglit  (75  Ga.  380) 

V.  Knight  (3  Jones  Kq.  107) 

V.  Knight  (2  Sim.  &  St.  490) 

V.  Lasseter  (16  Ga.  151) 

V.  Loomis  (30  Me.  204) 

V.  Oliver  (12  Grat.  .33)      1213,  1215,  1217 

V.  Wall  (2  Dev.  &  B.  125)  890 

V.  Yarborough  (4  Rand.  506)  693 


90 


827 

1100 

,822 

739 

439 

645 

902 

1009 

748 

393,  504 


Knifipenlierg  v.  Morris  (80  Ind.  540) 
Kiiorr  y.  Millard  (57  Mich.  265) 
Knott  V.  Ilogan  (4  Met.  Kv.  99) 

t'.  Stephens  (3  Oreg.  2(19) 
Knotts  V.  Bailev  (54  .Mi.ss.  235) 

V.  S!earns"(91  IT.  S.  0.38)  155, 

Knowlcs  r.  Blodgett  (15  R.  I.  403}  1044, 

V.  Dodge  (1  Mackev,  00) 

V.  Whaley  (15  R.  L  97)  841 

Knovvlloii  f.  .inhnson  (40  Me.  48.J) 
Knox's  Appeal  (20  Conn.  21) 
Knox  V.  liigginliotham  (75  Ga.  GJ9) 

V.  Jenks  (7  Mass.  488) 

V.  Jones  (47  N.  Y.  389) 

V.  Knox  (59  Wis.  172) 
Koch,  In  re  (3  Deni.  282) 
Kogeri;.  Franklin  (79  Ala.  505)  527 

Kohler  V.  K\m\>p  (1  Bradf.  241) 
Koltenbrock  v.  Cracraft  (30  Oh.  St.  584) 
Konvalinka  i:  Scliletiel  (104  N.  Y.  125) 
Koon  s  Appeal  (113  Pa.  St.  021)      1005, 
Kooii  v.  Munro  (11  S.  C.  139)  700, 

Koppeiihaffer  v.  Isaacs  (7  Watts,  170) 
Kort's  Aiipeal  (107  Pa.  St.  143) 
Kothiiiaii  V.  Markson  (34  Kan.  542)  356, 

Kramer  v.  Weinert  (81  Ala.  414) 
Kraiishaar  i\  Merer  (72  N.  Y.  602) 
Krehs  V.  Krebs  (35  Ala.  293)  1216, 

Kropff  V.  I'oth  (19  Fed.  R.  200) 
Krneger  v.  Ferrv  (41  N.  J.  Eq.  432) 
Krng  V.  Davis  (87  Ind.  590) 
Krutz  V.  Stewart  (76  Ind.  9) 
Kuhn  V.  Stansfield  (28  Md.  210) 
Kuinpe  V.  Coons  (03  Ala.  448) 
Knnkel  v  Macgill  (56  Md.  120) 
Kiinnen  v.  Zurliiie  (2  Cin.  440) 
Kurz,  Ex  parte  (24  S   C  468) 
Kvdd  V.  Dalrvnijile  (2  Dem.  630) 
Kvle  V.  Bariiett  (17  Ala.  306) 

V.  Conrad  (25  W.  Va.  700)         1213, 

V.  Kvle  (15  Oh.  St.  15) 
Kvles  I'.  "Kvle  (25  W.  Va,  376) 


Page 
842 

895 

120 

294 

989 

1034 

1045 

050 

,  842 

345 

37 

275 

1021 

379 

873 

1231 

,  572 

fi.-)0 

276 

207 

1010 

11-38 

11.^0 

1155 

357, 

1142 

31 

832 

1222 

302 

1106 

140 

1179 

609 

30 

967 

58 

201 

825 

1139 

1222 

804 

1125 


3,  8 


Labar  v.  Nichols  (23  Mich.  310)  1105 

Labarre  v.  Hopkins  (10  La.  An,  406)  901 

La  Bau  v.  Vanderbilt  (3  Redf.  384)  34 

Labauve's  Succession  (38  La.  An.  235)  1197 
Laberge  v.  McCausIand  (3  Mo.  585)  621 

Latiranclie  v.  Trepagnier  (4  La.  An.  558)  517 
Lackawanna  Co.'s  Case  (37  N.J.  Eq.  20)  Kill 
Lacock  V.  Commonwealth  (99  Pa.  St.  207;  834 
Lacompte  v.  Seargent  (7  Mo.  351)  307 

Lacoste  v.  Splivalo  (64  Cal.  35)  548 

Ladd's  Will  (00  Wis.  187)  83.  90 

Ladd  V.  Ladd  (14  Vt.  185)  247 

V.  Wiggiii  (35  N.  H.  421)  387,  .5!i5 

Laffertv  v.  Laffertv  (10  Ark.  268)  8:)8 

r.  Tnrlev  (3  Sneed.  1.57)  1247 

Lafiton  V.  Doiron  (12  La.  An.  164)  1053 

EaFov  V.  LaFov  (43  N.  ,L  Eq.  200)  1237 

La  Framboise  «*  Grow  (56  III.  197)  2.54 

Lagaide's  Succession  (20  La.  An.  148)  699 
Laidlev  r.  Kline  (8  W.  Va.  218)  715 

Lake  r.  Albert  (37  Minn.  453)  1199 

Lakiii  V.  Lakin  (2  Allen,  4.5)  227 

Lamar  v.  Micmi  (112  U.  S  452)  710 

V.  Scott  (4  Rich.  L.  516)  255 

V.  Scott  (3  Strohh.  502)  229 

V.  Sheflield  (60  Ga.  71U)  712,  713 


Ixxxvi 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


Piige 

Lamb  v.  Carroll  (G  Ired.  4)  1221 

V.  Girtman  (S-J  Ga.  289)  08 

V.  Helm  (5«J  M...  420)  402,  bM 

V.  Lamb  (105  liul.  45(J)  35,  44,  4(;'J 

i\  Lamb  (1  Spuers  Eq.  280)  0U7 

Lambe  v.  Eaiius  (L.  K.  6  Ch.  App.  597)     905 

Laiiibell  v.  Lauibell  (;i  Hagg.  5C8)  520 

Lambert  v.  Craft  (98  N.  Y.  342)  349,  82(5 

V.  Merrill  (5G  Vt.  4G4)  1199 

V.  Moore  (1  Nev.  344)  1201 

Lamberts  v.  Cooper  (29  Grat.  Gl)  475 

Laiiibson,  In  re  (2  Hughes,  233)  IGO 

Laiiikin  v.  Reese  (7  Ala.  170)  1037 

Lampert  v.  Haydel  (20  Mo.  App.  616)         956 

Lancaster's  Appeal  (47  Conn.  248)  1196 

Estate  14  Phila.  237)  1165 

Lancaster  i-.  McBryde  (5  Ired.  421)     494,  740 

V.  Washington  Lite  Ins.  Co.  (G2  Mo. 

121)  445 

Lancetield  v.  Iggulden  (10  Ch.  App.  136)  1094 

Landers  v.  Stone  (45  Ind.  404)  393,  534 

Landlord  v.  Dunklin  (71  Ala.  594)    396,  1047, 

1089 

Landis's  Estate  (13  Phila.  305)  1120 

Landis  v.  Landis  (1  Grant,  248)  37 

Landreth  v.  Landreth  (9  Ala.  430)  1156 

Lane  v.  Courtnav  (1  Heisk.  331)  238 

V.  Dorman  (4  111.  238)  1038 

V.  Eggleston  (2  Pat.  &  H.  225)  1132 

I?.  Lane  (8  Allen,  350)  955 

V.  Lane  (95  N.  Y.  494)  70 

V.  Thompson  (43  N.  H.  320)  385,  715 

Langs  Estate  (65  Cal.  19)  40,  89 

Lang  ?•.  Hitchcock  (99  111.  550)  277 

V.  Pettres  (11  Ala.  37)  1012 

Langan  v.  Bowman  (12  8ni.  &  M.  715)       516 

Laugdon  v.  Astor  (3  Uuer,  477)  973 

V.  Astor  (16  N.  Y.  9)      974,  977,  979,  980 

V.  Ingram  (28  Ind.  360)  955 

V.  Strong  (2  Vt.  234)  1067 

Langford  v.  Commissioners  (75  Ga.  502)    836 

Langham  v.  Baker  (5  Baxt.  701)  841 

Langhorne  v.  Hobson  (4  Leigh,  224)  249 

Langlev  v.  Harris  (23  Tex.  564)  542 

'v.  iVIavhew  (107  Ind.  198)  170,  171 

Langstroch  v.  Golding  (41  N.  J.  Eq.  49)    987, 

989 
787 
1000 
1270 
553 
734 
629 


Langton  v.  Higgs  (5  Sim.  228) 
Langworthv  v.  Chadwick  (13  Conn.  42) 
Lanier  «.  CJriffin  (US.  C.  565) 

V.  Irvine  (21  Minn.  447) 
Lank  v.  Kinder  (4  HaiT.  457) 
Lankford  v.  Barrett  (29  Ala.  700) 
Lanning  v.  Sisters  of  St.  Francis  (35  N.  J. 

Eq.  392) 

Lansing  v.  Lansing  (45  Barb.  182)  1138,  1168, 

1176 
Lantz  V.  Bover  (81  Pa.  St.  325) 

V.  Moffatt  (102  Ind.  23) 
Lapene  v.  Badeaux  (36  La.  An.  194) 
Lapham  v.  Martin  (33  Oh.  St.  99) 

V.  Norton  (71  IMc.  83) 
La  Plante  v.  Convery  (98  Ind.  409) 
Laporte  v.  Bishop  (23  Pa.  St.  152) 
Lappin  v.  Mumford  (14  Kan.  9) 
Lapslev  V.  Goldsbv  (14  Ala.  73) 
Large's  Appeal  (54  Pa.  St.  383) 
Large  v.  Large  (29  Wis.  60) 
Lark  v.  Lin  stead  (2  Md.  Ch.  162) 
Larkin  r.  McMullin  (49  Pa.  St.  29) 

V.  Salmon  (3  Dem.  270) 


720 


719 

1089 

1063 

994 

603 

859,  861 

1008 

387,  693 

856 

1233 

782 

991 

609 

964 


Page 
Laroe  v.  Douglass  (13  N.  .1.  Eq.  308)  1180 
Larrabee  r.  Larrabee  (28  Vt.  274)  87 

Larrowe  v.  Beam  (10  Oh.  498)  274 

La  Hue  r.  (.ilhert  (18  Kan.  220)  211 

Larue  v.  Van  Horn  (25  La,  An.  445)  344 

Larzelere  v.  Starkweather  (38  Mich.  96)   1086 
Lash  V.  Lash  (57  Iowa,  88)  140 

Lassell  V.  Keed  (6  Me.  222)  603 

Lassiter  v.  Cole  (8  Humph.  021)  632 

Lasure  v.  Carter  (5  Ind.  498)  1037 

Latham  v.  Barnev  (14  Fed.  li.  433)  1086, 1087, 

1088 

V.  McLane  (64  Ga.  320)  235,  238 

V.  Moore  (6  .Jones  L(|.  167)  693 

V.  Udell  (38  Mich.  238)  46 

Lathrop  v.  Smith  (35  Barb.  64)  399 

«.  Smith  (24  N.Y.  417)  399,532 

Latimer  v.  Savre  (45  Ga.  468)  774 

Latourette  v.  VVilliams  (1  Barb.  9)       640,  041 

Latta  V.  Pvuss  (9  Jones  L.  1 1 1)  1153 

Lattimore  r.  Simmons  (13  S.  &  R.  183)       624 

r.  Williams  (8  Ala.  428)  8.58 

Laughlin  r.  Heer  (89  111.  119)  1265 

V.  Lorenz  (48  Pa.  St.  275)  281,  285 

Laughman  v.  Thompson  (.6   Sm.   &   M. 

2.59)  1080 

Laurens  r.  Lucas  (6  Rich.  Eq.  217)  9.52 

V.  Read  (14  Rich.  Eq.  245)  967,  989 

Lavin   v.   Emigrant   Industrial    Savings 

Bank  (18  Blatchf.  1)  451,  453,  461 

Law  V.  Law  (83  Ala.  432)  90,  93 

V.  Smith  (2  R.  I.  244)        121.5,  1221,  1226 
Lawall  V.  Kreidler  (3  Rawlc,  300)  762 

Lawhorn  v.  Carter  (H  Bush,  7)  830 

Lawley's  Appeal  (9  Atl.  R.  327)  190 

Lawrence's  Appeal  (49  Conn.  411)     273,  564, 

1042,  1051 
Case  (Tuck.  68)  1182 

Will  (7  N.  J.  Eq.  215)  468,  497 

Lawrence,  In  re  (1  l.'edf.  310)  1050 

V.  Elmendorf  (5  Barb.  73)  377 

V.  Embree  (3  Bradf.  3G4)      994,  995,  1006 
V.  Englesbv  (24  Vt.  42)  1254 

V.  Hebbard  (1  Bradf.  252)  899 

V.  Lawrence  (3  Barb.  Ch.  71)  36G 

V.  Lawrence  (Lit.  Sel.  Cas.  128)  740 

V.  Lawrence  (4  Redf.  278)  1220 

V.  Lawrence  (2  Vern.  365)  266 

V.  Miller  (2  N.  Y.  245)  243 

V.  Miller  (1  Sandf.  516)  243 

V.  Mitchell  (3  Jones,  190)  1215 

V.  Norfieet  (90  N.  C.  533)  842 

V.  Parsons  (27  How.  Pr.  26)  401 

V.  Rayner(Busb.  L.  113)  1213 

r.  Security  Co.  (15  Atl.  R.  406)  1006 

I'.  Steel  (66  N.  C.  584)  478 

V.  Wright  (23  Pick.  128)  385,  432 

Lawson's  Appeal  (23  Pa.  St.  85)  1220 

Lawson  v.  Crofts  (1  Sid.  57)  404 

V.  De  Bolt  (78  Ind.  563)  253 

V.  Hansborough  (10  B  Mon.  147)       1155 
V.  Morrison  (2  Dallas,  286)  483 

V.  Mosely  (6  La.  An.  700)  565 

V.  Powell  (31  Ga.  681)  794 

V.  Riplev  (17  La.  238)  323 

Lawton  v.  Fish  (51  Ga.  647)  688 

t).  Lawton(3  Atk.  13)  600 

Lawyer  v.  Smith  (8  Mich.  411)  90 

Lay  V.  Clark  (31  Ala.  409)  808 

V.  Lawson  (23  Ala.  377)  698 

V.  Lay  (10  S.  C  208)    513,  741, 1164, 1242 


TABLE   OF   CASES. 


Ixxxvii 


Lay  V.  Mechanics'  Bank  (61  Mo.  72)  829 

Layman  v.  Conrey  (00  Md.  28U)  40 

Lavtin  v.  Davidson  (U5  N.  Y.  203)  1175 

LaVton  V.  Butler  (4  Harr.  507)  259 

'  V.  HoKue  (5  Or.  93)  702 

Lazear  v.  Porter  (87  Pa.  St.  513)  240 

Lazell  I'.  Lizell  (8  Allen,  575)  340 

Leach  v.  Buckner  ( 19  W.  Va.  36)  1184 

V.  House  (1  Bai.  42)  423 

V.  Jones  (80  N.  C.  404)  1179 

V.  Leach  (21  Hun,  381)  270 

V.  Leach  (51  Vt.  440)  1198 

V.  Milhurn  (14  Neb   100)  287 

V.  Pillsburv  (15  N.  H.  137)  415,  421 

V.  Prehster  (39  Ind.  492)  41 

Leaf's  Appeal  (105  Pa.  St.  505)     281,  289,  290 

Leake  r.  Fer;;uson  (2  Grat,  419)  773 

V.  Gilchrist  (2  Dev.  L.  73)  307,  439 

V.  Leake  (75  Va.  792)       1125,  1207,  1270 

Leakey  v.  Jlaupin  (10  Mo.  308)  039 

Leanion  v.  McCubbin  (82  III.  203)  431 

Learned  v.  Cutler  (18  Pick.  9)  248 

V.  Matthews  (40  Miss.  210)  330,  1090 

Leather  Cloth  Co.  v.  Amer.  Co.  (11  H.  L. 

523)  635 

Leathers  v.  Gray  (90  N.  C.  548)  901 

V.  Greenacre,  53  Me.  501)  60,  85 

V.  Meglasson  (2  T.  B.  Mon.  63)  1272 

Leatherwood  v.  Sullivan  (81  Ala.  458)         505, 

540,  712,  714 

Leavens's  Estate  (65  Wis.  440)  1131 

Leavenworth  v.  Marshal!  (19  Conn.  408)     171 

Leavitt  v.  Beirne  (21  Conn   1)  9.56 

V.  Leavitt  (47  N.  H.  329)  609 

V.  Wooster  (14  N.  H.  550)  1097 

Leavcraft  c.  Simmons  (3  Bradf.  35)  71 

Lebeau  v.  Trudeau  (10  La.  An.  104)  873 

Leber  v.  Kauffelt  (5  W.  &  S.  440)  385 

Leckey  v.  Cunningham  (50  Pa.  St.  370)       40 

Ledl)etter  v.  Loftau  (1  Murph.  224)  570 

Leddel  v.  Starr  (19  N.  J.  Kq.  159)       355,  570 

Lee's  Appeal  (53  Conn.  303)  59 

Succession  (28  La.  An.  23)  508 

Lee,  Apt>ellant  (18  Pick.  285)  1104 

V.  Boak  (11  Grat.  182)  119 

V.  Chase  (.58  Me.  432)  421,  427,  632 

V.  Eure  (82  N.  C.428)  1238 

t;.  Eure(93  N.  C.  5)  1238 

V.  Gardiner  (20  Miss.  521)  1079 

V.  Gause  (2  Ired.  440)  674 

V.  Gibbons  (14  S.  &  R.  105)  421 

V.  He-ster  (20  Ga.  588)  lOSr, 

V.  Lee  (6  Gill  &  J.  310)     1144,  1169,  1170 

V.  Lee  (4  McCord,  183)  32 

V.  Lee  (21  Mo.  531)  828 

V.  Pain  (4  Hare,  201)  971 

V.  Patrick  (9  Ived.  135)  802 

V.  Price  (12  Md.  253)  753 

V.  Wheeler  (4  Ga.  541)  642 

V.  White  (4  St.  &  P.  178)  1078 

V.  Wright  (1  Rawle,  149)  421 

Leech's  Appeal  (44  Pa.  St.  140)  1007 

Leech  v.  Leech  (1  Phila.  244)  34,  35 

Leeke  v.  Beanes  (2  Harr.  &  .L  373)  601 

Lees  v.  Wetmore  (58  Iowa,  170)  442 

Leese,  Goods  of  (2  Sw.  &  Tr.  442)  97 

Lefever  v.  Hasbrouck  (2  Dem.  567)  709 

Lefevre  v.  Lefevre  (59  N.  Y.  434)        893,  911 

Le  Fevre  v.  Toole  (84  N.  Y.  95)  1097 

Lefler  v.  Rowland  (1  Phill.  Eq.,  N.  C.  143)  939 

Legare  v.  Ashe  (I  Bav,  464)  91,  98 


Page 
Leggatt,  In  re  (4  Redf.  148)  1171 

Leggett  V.  Glover  (71  N.  C.  211)  830 

Le  Grand  r.  Fitch  (79  Va.  035)  708 

Lehman  v.  Rollers  (81  Ala.  303)  258,  2.59 

Lehr's  Appeal^US  Pa.  St.  25)  1131 

Lehr  v.  Tarball  (2  How.  Miss.  905)  578 

Leible  v.  Ferry  (32  N.  J.  E(|.  791)  689 

Leigh  V.  Smith  (3  Ired.  Eq.  442)  28 

Leighton  v.  Leighton  (58  Me.  63)  942 

'v.  Orr  (44  Iowa,  679)  499 

Leinkauf,  In  re  (4  Uem.  1)  1175 

Leiper's  Appeal  (35  Pa.  St.  420)  IL'33 

Leitz,  In  re  (6  Mo.  A|)p.  2.50)  348 

Leland  r.  Felton  (1  Allen,  531)  653 

V.  Havden  (102  Mass.  542)  1003 

V.  Wliitaker  (23  Mich.  324)  612 

Lemage  v.  Goodban  (L.  It.  1  P.  &  D.  57)  97 
Leman  v.  Sherman  (117  III.  657)  323 

V.  Sherman  (18  111.  App.  3(58)  323 

Lemmon  v.  Hnll  (20  Md.  106)  1173 

Lemon  v.  Lemon  (8  Vin.  Abr.  .306,  pi.  45)  206 
Le  Moyne  v.  (iaimby  (70  111.  399)  715 

Lenderman  v.  Lenderman  (1  Houst.  523)  639 
Lenfers  v.  Henke  (73  III.  405)  229,  2.58,  202 
Lenk  Wine  Co.  v.  Caspari  (11  Mo.  Apii. 

382)  808,  820 

Lennig's  Estate  (52  Pa.  St.  135)  1105 

Lenoir  v.  VViun  (4  Desaus.  65)   738,  772,  787, 

859 
Lenow  v.  Fones  (48  Ark.  557)  231,  244 

Lenox  r.  Harrison  (88  Mo.  491)  1127,  11-32 
Lent  V.  Howard  (89  N.  Y.  109)  720,  1137 

Leutz  V.  Pilert  (00  Md.  290)  522,  523 

Leonard  v.  Blair  (59  Ind.  510)  421,  431,  1205, 

1209 
V.  Cameron  (39  Miss.  419)  1002 

V.  Columbia  Co.  (84  N.  Y.  48)  630 

V.  Lining  (57  Iowa,  648)  140 

V.  Morris  (9  Pai.  90)  861 

V.  Simpson  (2  Bing.  N.  C.  170)  797 

Lepage  v.  McNamara  (5  Iowa,  124)  884, 

925  9-32 
Le  Rougetel  v.  Mann  (63  N.  H.  472)  969, 1097 
Lesherr.  Wirth  (14  111.  39)  186 

Leshey  v.  Gardner  (3  W.  &  S.  314)  1003 

Leslie  v.  Sims  (39  Ala.  161)  74,  477 

Lessassier's  Estate  (34  La.  An.  1066)      190, 

200 

Lessing  v.  Vertrees  (32  Mo.  431)  386 

Lett  V.  Emmett  (37  N.  J.  Eq.  535)  577 

Levan's  Appeal  (112  Pa.  St.  294)  524 

Leverett  v.  Carlisle  (19  Ala.  bO)  46 

V.  Dismukes  (10  Ga.  98)  516,  528 

Levering  v.  Levering  (64  Md.  399)      574,  576 

Levi  V.  Huggins  (14  Rich.  166)  396 

Leviness  v.  Cassebeer  (3  Redf.  491)     346,  867 

Levins  r.  Stevens  (7  Mo.  90)  1240 

Lew's  Estate  (Tuck.  148)  1142 

LevV  V.  Lew  (28  Md.  25)  350 

'v.  Levv"(33  N.  Y.  97)  923 

V.  RileV  (4  Or.  .392)  1079 

V.  Stewart  (11  Wall.  244)  847 

Lewes's  Trust  (L.  R.  11  Eq.  236)  1015 

Lewes  v.  Lewes  (6  Sim.  304)  956 

Lewin  v.  Lewin  (2  Ves.  Sr.  415)  988 

Lewis's  Case  (33  N.  J.  Eq.  219)  35 

Estate  (39  Cal.  .306)  1067 

Will  (51  Wis.  101)  37 

Lewis  V.  Adams  (70  Cal.  403)  362,  366 

V.  Bolitho  (6  (;ray,  1.37)  127,  1195 

V.  Brooks  (6  Yerg.  167)  395 


Ixxxviii 


TABLE   OF   CASES. 


Lewis  V.  Carson  (93  ]Mo.  587)  1143 

V.  Chiiiupidii  (40  N.  J.  Eq.  50)      80G,  840 
V.  Coxe  (5  Han-.  401)  '250 

V.  Darling  (IG  How.  1)  989,  1104 

V.  Douglass  (14  II.  I.  004)  8i)-2 

V.  Ford  (07  Ala.  143)  844 

V.  Gamb.s  (0  Mo.  App.  138)  549 

V.  Gorman  (5  Pa.  St.  164)  154 

V.  Johnston  (09  N.  C.  392)  794 

V.  Jones  (50  Barb.  045)  40 

V.  Labauve  (13  La.  An   382)  1054 

V.  Liingd(jn  (7  Sim.  421)  292 

V.  Lewis  (13  Barb.  17)  69,  71 

t;.  Lewis(7  Ired.  L.  72)  270,351 

V.  Lewis  (11  N.  Y.  220)  470 

V.  Lewis  (0  S.  &  R.  489)  483 

V.  Lnndv  (9  Atl.  883)  1216 

V.  Lusk'(35  Miss.  0ii6)  001 

V.  Lvons(13  111.  117)  386,  434 

V.  McCabe  (76  ^lo.  307)  397 

V.  McFarland  9  Cr.  151)  367 

V.  McGraw  (19  111.  App.  313)  1070 

V.  Mason  (109  Mass.  109)  48 

V.  Overbv  (31  Grat.  601)  1260 

r.  Kingo'(3  A.  K.  Marsh.  247)  593 

V.  St.  Louis  (09  Mo   595)  494 

V.  St.  Louis  Railroad  (59  Mo.  495)        C70 
V.  Scofield  (20  Conn.  452)  57 

V.  Smith  (9  N.  Y.  502)  267 

V.  Soper  (44  Me.  72)  075 

V.  United  States  (92  U.  S.  018)  287 

V.  Watson  (3  Kedf.  43)  549 

V.  Williams  (54  Mo.  200)  1132 

Lex's  Appeal  (97  Pa.  St.  289)  344,  1235 

L'Fit  V.  L'Batt  (1  P.  Wms.  520)  486 

Libby  v.  Cobb  (TO  Me.  471)  401.  752 

Lichtenberg  v.  Herd  if  elder  (103  N.  Y. 

302)  031,  1045 

Liddel  v.  McVickar  (11  N.  J.  L.  44)        l(t25, 

1125,  1135,  1150,  1159 

Lidderdale  v.  Robinson  (2  Brock.  159)      797, 

1187 
Lide  V.  Lide  (2  Brev.  403)  341 

Ligare  v.  Semple  (32  Mich.  438)  225 

Liggat  V.  Hart  (23  Mo.  127)  887,  890 

Light  V.  Kennard  (11  Neb.  129)  1221 

V.  Leininger  (8  Pa.  St.  403)  827 

V.  Light  (21  Pa.  St.  407 )  209 

Lightcap's  Appeal  (95  Pa.  St.  455)  1158 

Lightfoot  r.  Lightfoot  (27  Ala.  351)  1104 

Ligon  V.  Rogers  (12  Ga.  281)  333 

Likefield  v.  Likefield  (82  Kv.  589)  54 

Liles  V.  Fleming  (1  Dev.  Eq.  185)  2  5 

Lilev  V.  Hev  (1  Hare,  580)  933 

Lillard  v.  Reynolds  (3  Ired.  L.  366)  991, 

992    91)3 

Lillie  V.  Lillie  (56  Vt.  714)  'l200 

Lilly  V.  Currv  (6  Bush,  590)  983 

"d.  Griffin  (71  Ga.  535)  1148 

V.  Woolev  (94  N.  C.  412)  1041 

Limekiller   v.    Hannibal   R.  R.   Co.    (33 

Kan.  83)  630 

Lindsav.  Ex  parte  (2  Bradf.  204)  54 

V.  Harrison  (8  Ark.  302)  608 

V.  Howertson  (2  Hen.  &  M.  9)  1147 

«.  Jaffrav  (55  Tex.  020)  1081 

V.  Lindsav  (I  Des.  150)  507 

V.  McCormack  (2  A.  K.  Marsh.  229)  439, 

472 

V.  Pleasants  (4  Ired.  Eq.  320)  940 

Lindsey  v.  Lindsey  (45  Ind.  552)  952 


Page 
Lingan  v.  Carroll  (3  H.  &  McH.  333,  s.  c. 

338)  943 

Lingen  v.  Lingen  (45  Ala.  410)  131,  157 

Linginfetter  v.  Linginfctter  (Hardin,  119)  100 
Lingle  v.  Cook  (32  Grat.  2(i2)  550,  551,  710 
Link  V.  Ednuindson  (19  Mo.  487)  244 

Linnard's  Appeal  (93  Pa.  St.  313)  94 

Linnville  v  Darby  (1  Baxt.  300)  330,  1090 
Linsenbigler  v.  Courier  (56  Pa.  St.  166)   344, 

350 
Linstead  v.  Green  (7  Md.  82)  880 

Linton's  Appeal  (104  Pa.  St.  228)  50 

Succession  (31  La  An.  130)  1187 

Lipe  V.  Mitchell  (2  Yerg.  400)  325 

Lippincott  v.  Lippincott  (19  N.  J.   Eq. 

121)  717 

Lipse  V.  Spears  (4  Hughe.«,  535)  1116 

Liptrot  V.  Holmes  (1  Ga.  381)  810,  817 

Litchtield  v.  Cudworth  (15  Pick.  23)  104, 

703,  1056 
Little's  Appeal  (117  Pa.  St.  14)  943 

Little  V.  Berry  (94  N.  C.  433)  532,  535 

V.  Birdwell  (21  Tex.  597)  669,  901,  1123 
V.  Birdwell  (27  Tex.  088)  170,  191,  215 
V.  Dawson  (4  Dall.  Ill)  824 

V.  Knox  (15  Ala.  570)  559 

V.  Little  (36  N.  H.  224)  805 

V.  McPherson  (76  Ala.  532)  177,  182, 188, 

284 
V.  Sinnett  (7  Iowa,  324)  1036 

V.  Thorne  (93  N.  C.  09)  354 

V.  Willford  (31  Minn.  173)  920,  928,  932 
V.  Williams  (7  111.  App.  67)  762 

V.  Woodward  (14  Bush.  585)  208 

Littlefield  v.  Eaton  (74  Me.  516)  648,  841, 1070 
V.  Tinsley  (20  Tex.  353)  1059 

Little    Rock  Co.  v.  Townsend  (41  Ark. 

382)  626,  628 

Littleton  v.  Addington  (59  Mo.  275)    718, 724, 

735,  1024 

V.  Christy  (11  Mo.  390)  397 

V.  Littleton  (1  Dev.  &  B.  L.  327)    245,  247 

V.  Patterson  (32  Mo.  357)  274 

Lively  v.  Harwell  (29  Ga.  509)  100 

Livermore  v.  Bemis  (2  Allen,  394)  1194 

V.  Rand  (26  N.  H.  85)  1146 

V.  Wortman  (25  Hun,  341)  705 

Livingston  v.  Cochran  (33  Ark.  294)        1060, 

1085 
V.  Combs  (1  N.  J.  L.  42)  1255 

V.  Langlev  (3  S.  E.  R.  909)  161 

V.  Newki'rk  (3  John.  Ch.  312)    744,  1039, 

1094 

V.  Noe  (1  Lea.  55)  1079 

Lloyd's  Estate  (82  Pa.  St.  143)  1137 

LloVd  V.  Connoyer  (25  N.  J.  L.  47)  233 

'  V.  Fulton  (91  U.  S.  479)  608.  61 1 

V.  Llovd  (10  Kng.  L.  &  Eq.  139)  934 

V.  LloVd  (1  Redf.  399)  669 

V.  Rambo  (35  Ala.  709)  879 

V.  Wayne  Cir.  Judge  (56  Mich.  236)    464 

Loane  v.  Casev  (2  W.  Bl.  965)  788 

Lobit  V.  Castil'le  (14  La.  An.  779)  1119 

Lockart  v.  Northington  (1  Sneed,  318)        718 

Locke  V.  Barbour  (02  Ind.  577)  900 

V.  Rowell  (47  N.  H.  40)  200 

Lockett  V.  James  (8  Bush,  28)  246 

Lockhart  v.  Bell  (80  N.  C.  443)  831 

r.  Cameron  (29  Ala.  355)  639 

V.  White  (18  Tex.  102)  204,  1154 

Lockwood  V.  Gilson  (12  Oh.  St.  526)         1066 


TABLE   OF   CASES. 


Ixxxix 


Lock  wood  V.  Stockholm  (11  Pai.  87)  (ii'i 

V.  Sturdevant  (6  Conn.  373)      1050,  10G7, 

lOiiO 

Loeb  r.  :\rcMahon  (80  111.  487)  208 

V.  Kichardsou  (74  Ala.  311)  170 

Loebeut.lial  r.  Kulciu-h  (3(1  N..I.  Kq.  1G9)    732 

Loeschigk  v.  Ilatlicld  (hi  N.  Y.  GGO)  280 

Loftin  V.  Loftin  (00  N.  C.  24)  831 

Logan  V.  IJardav  (3  Ala.  301)  G2G 

V.  Caldwell  "(23  Mo.  372)  037 

V.  Gitrlev  (9  Ga.  114)  1047,  1055 

V.  Hall  (1!)  I(.wa,  491)  009 

V.  LoLC.ui  (13  Ala.  053)  1217 

V.  I'hillips  (18  Mo.  22)  204 

V.  Troutinaii  (3  A.  K.  Marsh.  00)       1100 

V.  Williams  (70  111.  17-5)  329 

Lomas  v.  Wright  (2  :Mv1.  &  K.  709)  782 

Lombard  v.  BovdFii  (5'Alltii,  249)  902 

V.  Kiiizie  (73  111.  440)  230 

Lomerson  v.  Vroom   (11  Atl.  R.,  N.  J. 

13)  355 

Lommen  r.  Tobiason  (52  Iowa,  6G5)  1137 

Long's  Estate  (0  Watts,  40)  G77 

Long  V.  Burnett  (13  Iowa,  28)  1023 

V.  Easlv  (13  Ala.  239)  522,  1191 

V.  Hitchcock  (3  Ohio,  274)  024 

V.  Hugiiins  (72  Ga.  770)         507,  510,  533 

V.  Joplin  Min.  Co.  (08  Mo.  422)  394, 10G8, 

1081 
V.  Long  (118  III.  638;  s.   c.  19  111. 

Ai)p.  383)  1221,  1220 

V.  Long  (3  Ves.  286,  note)  1009 

V.  Magestre  (1  J(dm.  Ch.  305)  433 

V.  Mitchell  (63  (ia.  709)  125!} 

V.  Morrison  (14  Ind.  595)  625 

V.  O'Fallon  (19  How.  116)  595 

V.  Head  (9  Lea,  538)  1098,  1102 

V.  Rodman  (58  Ind.  58)  758 

V.  Short  (1  F.  Wms.  403)  908 

V.  Thompson  (00  111.  27)  1125,  1127 

V.  Wortham  (4  Tex.  381)  570,  570 

Longstail'  v.  Rennison  (1  Drew.  28)  Gl 

Longuefosse's  Succession  (34  La.  An.  583)  400 

Longwell  c.  Ridinger  (1  (iill,  57)  779 

Longwith  v.  Riggs  (123  111.  258)  1102 

Longworth  v.  Goforth  (Wright,  192)         1079 

V.  WolMngton(6  Oh.  9)  1080 

Loocock  ('.  Clarkson  (1  Des.  471)  985 

Looker  r.  Davis  (47  Mo.  140)  833 

Loomis  V.  Armstrong  (49  Mich.  521)  284, 1150, 

1109 
V.  Kellogg  (17  Pa.  St.  60)  473 

Lord  I'.  Bourne  (03  Me.  368)  902 

V.  Brooks  (.52  N.  H.  72)  1004 

V.  Lancev  (21  Me.  408)  553 

V.  Lord  (05  Cal.  84)  198 

V.  Lord  (23  Conn.  327)  206,  272,  985 

Lorieux  v.  Keller  <.5  Iowa,  196)   70,  110,  5(I2, 

885 

Lorimer,  Goods  of  (2  Sw.  &  Tr.  471)  510 

Loring  v.  Craft  (16  Ind.  110)  171 

V.  Cunningham  (9  Cush.  87)  046 

V.  Oakev  (98  Mass.  267)  481 

V.  Stememann  (1  Met.  Mass.  204)      1231, 

12.i4 
V.  Woodward  (41  N.  H.  391)     967,  1000, 

1008 
Lorings  v.  ISIarsh  (6  Wall.  3.37)  110,  922 

Lothrop's  Case  (33  N.  .J.  Eq.  240)  407 

Lothrop  V.  Foster  (51  Me.  307)  250 

Lott  V.  Meacham  (4  Fla.  144)  990,  993 


Page 

Louaillier  r.  Castille  (14  La.  An.  777)         437 

Loubat  V.  Nourse  (5  Fla.  350)  289 

Louis  r.  Easton  (50  Ala.  470)  834 

Louisiana  Hank  v.  Kenner  (I  La.  .384)         283 

Louisville  Railroad  i\  Burke  (G  Coldw.  45)  029 

V.  McCov  (81  Kv.  403)  627 

V.  Thompson  ('S  N.  East.  357)  832 

Lourev  v.  Herbert  (25  Miss.  101)        106,  173 

Love  V.  Berrv  (22  Tex.  371)  1078 

V.  .lohnston  (12  Ired.  L.  355)  80,  113 

r.  Love  (3  Ilavw.  13)  1024 

Love^rove,  Goods  of  (2  8w.  &  Tr.  453)        57 

Lovejoyf.  Irelan  (19  Md.  50)  337 

i\  Kavmond  (58  Vt.  509)  1098 

Lovell  V.  Minot  (20  Pick.  110)  706 

V.  Nelson  (11  Allen,  101)  829 

V.  ()uitmau  (25  Hun,  5-37)  93 

r.  ()uitman  (88  N.  Y.  377)  93 

Loveren  v.  Lamprey  (22  N,  H.  434)  88G 

Lovering  v.  Lovering  (129  Mass.  97)  940 

V.  Minot  (9  Cush.  151)  lOOG 

Lovett  V.  Gillender  (35  N.  Y.  017)     883,  918. 

955 

Low  V.  Bartlett  (8  Allen,  259)  361 

V.  Carter  (1  Beav.  420)  790 

V.  Low  (77  Me.  37)  979 

V   Low  (77  Me.  171)  1237 

Lowber  v.  Ueauchamp  (2  Harr.  139)  337 

Lowder  v.  Lowder  (58  Ind.  5-38)  44 

Lowe  V.  Guice  (09  Ala.  80)  1034,  1001 

V.  .Tones  (15  Ala.  .545)  844,  845 

V.  Williamson  (2  N.  J.  Eq.  82)         41,  47 

Lowerv  v.  Lowerv  (04  N.  C.  110)  1195 

i;.>errv  (85N.  C.  131)  1229 

Lowndes  v.  Dickerson  (34  Barb.  586)  596 

Lowry  v.  Mountjoy  (6  Call,  55)  991 

V.  Newsom  (51  Ala.  570)  1231 

Loxlev's  Estate  (14  Phila.  317)  578 

Lov  v.  Kennedy  ( 1  N.  &  S.  396)  70 

LoVd  0.  Lovd  (9  Bax.  400)  842 

Lo'vless  V.  Rhodes  (9  Ga.  547)  1259 

Lucas  V.  Goff  (33  Miss.  629)  82,  83 

V.  Morse  (139  Mass.  59)  351 

V.  N.  Y.  C.  R.  (21  Barb.  245)  517 

V.  Price  (4  Ala.  079)  392 

V.  Sawver  (17  Iowa,  517)  242 

Luce  V.  Railroad  (03  N.  H.  588)     365,  366,  368 

Lucht  V.  Behrens  (28  Oh.  St.  231)        688,  758 

Lucich  V.  Medin  (3  Nev.  93)    576, 1129,  11-30, 

1170 
Liickev,  Matter  of  (4  Redf.  95)  705 

Lucv  i\  Lucy  (55  .N .  H.  9)  6-36,  1142 

Ludlam's  Estate  (13  Pa.  St.  188)     967,  973, 

974 

Ludlow  V.  Cooper  (4  Oh.  St.  1)  290 

V.  Flournoy  (34  Ark.  451)  410 

V.  Johnston  (3  Oh.  553)      330,  336,  1048, 

1051 
V.  Ludlow  (30  N.  J.  Eq.  597) 
V.  Park  (4  Oh.  5) 
V.  Wade  (5  Oh.  494) 
Ludwi<,r  V.  Blackinton  (24  Me.  25) 
Lufkin  V.  Curtis  (13  Mass.  223) 
Luigart  v.  Ripley  (19  Oh.  St.  24) 
Luni  V.  Dodson  (Selw.  N.  P.) 
Lumb  V.  Jenkins  (100  M.ass.  .527) 
Lumpkin  r.  Smith  (02  Tex.  249) 
Lunav  v.  Vantvne  (40  Vt.  501) 
Lun<rr.  Lund  (41  N.  H.  355)     76 
Lunsford  v.  Jarrett  (2  Lea,  579) 


68,  70 

1048 

1051 

858 

250 

962 

441 

22 

436 

140 

705,  1186 

214,  1070, 

1123 


xc 


TABLE  OF   CASP:S, 


Pase 

Luntr.  Lunt(108I11.307)  917 

Luptoui;.Luptou(2Joliu.  Ch.GU)    fl8n,10()7, 

UMb,  10U8,  1118 

Luscomb  V.  Ballard  (5  Grav,  40.J)  410 

Lusk»>  Aiulurson  (1  Met.  Kv.  420)     843,  1148 

r.  Benton  (30  La.  An.  G8U)  350 

V.  Lewis  (32  Miss.  2U7)  502,  957 

Luther's  Estate  (67  CaL  319)  192 

Lutlieran  Congregation's  Appeal  (113  Pa. 

St.  32)  911 

Lutkins  V.  Leigh  (Cas.  Temp.  Talb.  53)    1105 

Lutz  V.  Christy  (67  Cal.  457)  1197 

V.  Gates  (62  Iowa,  513)  ^  7G1 

Lvendecker  v.  Eisemann  (3  Dem.  72)      1137, 

1173 

Lvle  V.  Richards  (9  Serg.  &  R.  322)  17 

"     V.  Rodders  (5  Wheat.  394)  685 

V.  Williams  (65  Wis.  231)  1153 

Lvman  v.  Lvinan  (2  Paine,  11)  201 

Lvnch  V.  Baxter  (4  Tex.  431)  330,  1030 

'    V.  Clements  (24  N.  J.  Eq.  431)  4G 

V.  Divan  (66  Wis.  490)  1140 

V.  Hickev  (13  111.  App.  139)     1021,  1032, 

1036 

V.Hill  (6  Mmif.  114)  880 

V.  Livingston  (6  N.  Y.  422)  2.52 

V.  Miller  (54  Iowa.  516)  500 

«.  Rotan  (3UI11    14)  432 

Lvne  V.  Guardian  (1  Mo.  410)  497 

Lvnes  v.  Havden  (119  Mass.  482)        350,  356 

'     V.  Townsend  (33  N.  Y.  558)  882,  890 

Lynn  v.  Gephart  (27  Md.  547)  727 

Lyon,  Ex  parte  (60  Ala.  650)  407 

In  re  (70  Iowa,  375)  1215,  1216 

V.  Allison  (1  Watts.  161)  792 

V.  Church  (41  N.  J.  Eq.  389)  1103 

V.  Havs  (30  Ala.  430)  767 

V.  Lvon  (8  Ired.  Eq.  201)  702.  703 

V.  Magagnos  (7  Grat.  377)  1010 

D.  Osgood  (58  Vt.  707)  1140 

V.  Smith  (11  Barb.  124)  67 

V.  Snvder  (61  Barb.  172)  833,  834 

V.  Vick  (6  Yerg.  42)  993 

Lyons,  Ex  parte  (2  Leigh,  761)  440 

Lvtle  V  Beveridge  (58  N.  Y.  592)  702 

Lyttleton  v.  Cross  (3  B.  &  C.  317)  785 


Maas  V.  Sheffield  (1  Rob.  364;  10  Jur. 

417) 
Mabie  v.  Matteson  (17  Wis.  1 )  1066 

Mabry  v.  Harrison  (44  Tex.  286)  210 

Macartv's  Succession  (3  La.  An.  517)        1146 
Succession  (5  La.  An.  4.34)         1166,  1180 
Macaulev  v.  Dismal  Swamp  Co.  (2  Rob. 

Va.  50'7)  230 

Maccubbin   v.   Cromwell  (2  Harr.  &  G. 

443)  255 

Macias's  Succession  (31  La.  An.  52)  1089 

Mack  V.  Heiss  (90  Mo.  578)  200,  207,  213 

Maekay  v.  Church  (15  R.  I.  121)  367,  374 

Mackenzie  v.  Handasvde  (2  Hagg.  Ec.  R. 

211)  "  43 

Mackev.  Matter  of  (44  Hun,  571)  70 

IV  "Ballou  (112  Ind.  198)  1144.  1195 

V.  Coxe  (18  How.  100)  37.5,  651 

V.  Proctor  (12  B.  Mon.  433)  276,  277 

Mackie  v.  Alston  (2  Des.  362)  942 

Mackintosh  v.  Barber  (1  Bing.  50)  722 

Macknet  v.  Macknet  (24  N.  J.  Eq.  277)     76 1 , 

950 


Page 
Mackreth  v.  Jackson  (note  in  1  Mau.  & 

Sel.  40U)  785 

Maclean  c.  Dawson  (1  Sw.  &  Tr.  425)        407 

Macnianus  v.  Cam]il.ell  (.37  Tex.  267)         201 

Macoleta  v.  Packard  (14  Cal.  178)  809 

Macv  V.  Ravmond  (9  i'icU.  285)  1050 

v.  Sawver  ^06  How.  Pr.  381)  883 

Maddox  j;.Apperson  (14  Lea,  596)  677 

V.  Maddox  (11  Grat.  804)  958,  963 

V.  Maddox  (i)7  Ind.  537)  817 

Madison  v.  Shocklev  (41  Iowa,  451)  415 

Maeck  v.  Sinclear  (10  Vt.  103)         1035,  1036 

Magee's  Estate  (63  Cal.  414)  158 

Magee  «.  Mellon  (23  Miss.  585)  275 

V.  O'Neil  (19  S.  C.  170)  958 

V.  Vedder  (6  Barb.  352)  346 

INIagcrs  v.  Edwards  (13  W.  Va.  822)  355 

Magill  V.  Brown  (Brightlv,  373,  note)       908, 

927,  928 
Magner  v.  Rvan  (19  Mo.  196)  417,  426 

Magniac  v.  Thompson  (7  Pet.  348)  608 

Magofbn  v.  I'atton  (4  Rawle,  113)  1009 

Magoohan's  Appeal  (117  Pa.  St.  238)  96 

Magraw  v.  Irwin  (87  Pa.  St.  139)        363,  374 

V.  McGlvnn  (26  Cal.  420)    810.  863,  1134 
Magwood  V.  "Johnston  (1  Hill  Ch.  228)        707 

r.  Legge  (Harp.  116)  411 

Mabafty  v.  Mahaflv  (63  Iowa,  55)  213 

Mahan;  In  re  (98  N.  Y.  372)  942 

V.Owen  (23  Ark.  347)  809 

IMahon  v.  Bower  (1  How.  Miss.  275)  1237 

Mahone  v.  Central  Bank  (17  Ga.  Ill)         773 

V.  Haddock  (44  Ala.  92)  860 

Mahone V,  Matter  of  (34  Hun,  501)  1021, 1033, 

10.34 

V.  Young  (3  Dana,  588)  234 

Mahorner  v.  Hooe  (!)  Sm.  &  M.  247)        1239 
Main  v.  Ryder  (84  Pa.  St.  217)  48,  65 

V.  Schwarzwaelder  (4  E.  D.  Smith, 
273)  602 

Mairs.  ISIatter  of  (4  Redf.  160)  1138 

r.  Freeman  (3  Redf.  181)  31 

Maitland  r.  Adair  (3  Ves.  231)  936 

Major  r.  Herndon  (78  Kv.  123)  999 

V.  Williams  (3  Curt.'  432)  101 

Makepeace  v.  Lukens  (27  Ind.  435)     335,  336 

V.  Moore  (10  111.  474)  693 

IMalcolm  v  Malcolm  (3  Cush.  472)  878 

Malin  v.  Malin  (1  Wend.  625)  92 

Malinda  &  Sarah  r.  Gardner  (24  Ala.  719)  672 
Mallet  V.  Smith  (6  Rich.  Eq.  12)  9-59 

Mallett  V.  Dexter  (1  Curt.  178)         1123,  1124 
Mallonev  v.  Horan  (12  Abb.  Pr.  n.  s. 
289)   '  246 

V.  Horan  (49  N.  Y.  Ill)  246 

Mallorv  r.  Craige  (15  N.  J.  Eq.  73)  357 

r.  Russell  (71  Iowa,  63)  2!J0 

Malone  v.  Hundlev  (52  Ala.  147)  805 

r.  McLaurin  (40  Miss.  161)  277 

Malonev's  Estate  (5  Pa.  Law  J.  R.  139)      579 
MaloneV  v.  Hefer  (17  Pac.  R.  539)  199 

V.  Wilson  (9  Baxt.  403)  842 

INlanchester  v.  Hough  (5  Mas.  67)  248 

Manderson  v.  Lukens  (23  Pa.  St.  31)  951 

MandeviUe  v.  Mandeville  (35  Ga.  243)      529, 

532 

V.  Mandeville  (8  Pai.  475)  543,  544 

Mandlebaum  v.  McDonell  (29  Mich.  78)     955 
Mangum  r.  Piester  (10  S.  C.  310)  917 

Manhattan  Co.  v.  Kvertson  (6  Paige,  457)   247 
Mauice,  In  Re  (31  Hun,  119)  1171 


TABLE   OF   CASES. 


XCl 


Page 

Manice  v.  Maiiice  (43  N.  Y.  303)  918 

Maiiier  r.  Phelps  (15  Abb.  N.  C.  123)         937 

Mani-le's  Estate  (11  Fliila.  39)  1120 

Manion  r.  Titsworth  (18  B.  Mon.  582)        371 

Mankin  r.  Chandler  (2  Brock.  125)  337 

Manlv  V.  Turnipseecl  (37  Ala.  522)      368,  073 

Manii  v.  Copland  (2  Madd.  457)  908 

V.  Edson  (39  Me.  45)  232 

V.  Everts  (64  AVis.  372)  819,  1209 

V.  Lawrence  (3  Bradf.  424)  1159 

V.  Mann  (12  Heisk.  245)  1219,  1237 

V.  Mann  (U.John.  1)  892 

V.  Munn  (1  .John.  Ch.  231)  895 

V.  Mann  (53  Vt.  48)  340 

Jlauners  v.  Library  Co.  (93  Pa.  St.  165)    907, 

908 

Ma  nin«  v.  Laboree  (.S3  Me.  343)  250 

V.  Mani.in-(12  Rich.  En.  410)  1214,  1216, 

1222 

V.  Purcell  (7  DeG.  M.  &  G.  55)  486 

V.  Randolph  (4  X.  J.  L.  144)  638 

V.  Thurston  (.59  Md.  218)  1216 

Mannv  v.  Kixford  (44  III.  129)  612 

Mansfield  v.  Turpin  (32  Ga.  260)  309,  492 

Manuel  v.  Manuel  (13  Oh.  St.  4.58)  495 

]\Ian\varing  v.  Jeuisou  (01  Mich.  117)         602 

Manwell  v.  Bngus  (17  Vt.  176)     385,  620,  643 

Maples  V.  Howe  (3  Barb.  Ch.  611)  1075 

V.  Millon  (^1  Conn.  598)  597,  598 

Mara  r.  C^uin  (6  T.  K  1)  794 

March  r.  Huvter  (50  Tex.  243)  57 

Marcv  c.  Mafcv  (32  Conn.  308)  364,  371 

V.  Marcv  (6  Met.  Mass.  360)  47-i 

Harden,  Estate  of  (Myr.  184)  1043 

Margar}'   v.  Kobinson   (L.    E.  12   Prob. 

D.  8)  64 

Markham  v.  Merrett  (7  How.  Miss.  437)  235, 

251,  290 
Markland  v.  Albes  (81  Ala.  433)  579 

Marks,  Succession  of  (35  La.  An.  1054)     888, 

889,  890 

V.  Marks  (35  La.  An.  993)  20 

r.  Rvan  (03  Cal.  107)  600 

Marlatt  r.  Scantland  (19  Ark.  443)  283 

Mailer  v.  Marler  (6  Ala.  307)  631 

Marlett  v.  Jackman  (3  Allen,  287)  288 

Marlow  V.  Marlow  (48  Iowa,  639)  807 

Marnell  v.  Walton  (T.  T.  1796)  60 

Marr,  Ex  parte  (12  Ark.  84)  1032 

17.  Boothby  (19  Me.  150)  1050 

V.  McCullough  (6  Fort.  507)  942 

V.  Marr  (2  Head,  303)  78 

V.  Peav  (2  Mnrphv,  84)  512 

V.  Rucker  (1  Huniph.  348)  632, 1110 

Marre  v.  Ginochio  (2  Bradf.  105)     1130,  1189 

Marrey's  Estate  (65  Cal.  287)  1148,  1195 

Marriott  v.  Thompson  (Willes,  180)  787 

Marsden  v.  Kent  (L.  R.  5  Ch  D.  598)         710 

Marsellis  v.  Thalhimer  (2  Pai.  35)  276 

Marsh,  In  re  (45  Hun,  107)  481,  491 

V.  r5errv  (7  Cow.  344)  330 

V.  Boar'd,  &c.  (38  Wis.  2.50)  713 

V.  Doolev  (52  Cal,  2-32)  840 

V.  Hague  (1  Edw.  Ch.  174)        1009,  1010 

V.  Harrington  (18  Vt.  1.50)  740 

V.  Lazenbv  (41  Ga.  153)  181 

V.  Marsh  ("lO  B.  Mon.  .360)  1103 

V.  Marsh  (3  Jones  L.  77)  10 ) 

V.  Marsh  (1  Sw.  &  Tr.  528)  486 

V.  Mitchell  (26  N  J.  Eq.  497)  253 

V.  Oliver  (14  N.  J.  Eq.  259)  740 


Page 
Marsh  V.  People  (15  111.  284)  .570,  583,  588,  749 
V.  Tavlor  (43  N.  .1.  i:(i.  1)  1000.  1007 

Marshall  r.  Berrv  (13  Allen,  43)  117,  120, 127 
V.  Broadhurst  (1  Tvrwh.  348)  687 

V.  Conrad  (5  Call,   '.04)  22 

V.  Crow  (29  Ala.  278)  433 

?.'.  Flinn  (4  Jones  L.  199)  46 

v.  Gavle  (58  Ala.284)  433 

V.  Hidson  (9  Yer-.  57)  819 

V.  King  (24  Miss.  85)  432,  1239 

V.  Perkins  (72  Me.  343)  803 

V.  Rench  (3  Del.  Ch.  239)  978, 1215,  1224, 

1225 

i\  Kose  (86  III.  374)  1030 

r.  Wv.song  (3  Deni.  173)  1174 

Marshall  Co.  v.  Hanna  (57  Inwa,  372)  387,  693 

Marsteller  v.  Marsteller  (93  Fa.  St.  -ibQ)      844 

Marston,  Petitioner  (79  IMe.  25)     70,  527,  1200 

V.  Carter  (12  N.  H.  159)  1001 

V.  Roe  ex  dem.  Fox  (8  Ad.  &  El.  14)     106 

V.  Paulding  (10  Pai.  40)  346 

V.  Wilcox  (2  111.  60)  331,  572 

-   -         ■  2ii2 

268,  275 

780 

71 

380)        55 

47 

953 

631 

1153 

680 

70)     407,  539 

437 

748,  750 

65 

831 

9.35 

994 

236 

259,  265 

952 

739 

631 

1010 

52 

289,  290 

905 

385,  410 

277 

472,  474 

1241 

1040 

355 

325,  330,  4.52 

031,  632,  1070 

1035,  1038 

547 

827 

714 

702 

212,  208 


Marten  v.  Van  Schaick  (4  Pai.  479) 
Martien  v.  Norris  (91  Mo.  405) 
Martin's  Appeal  (33  Pa.  St.  395) 

Estate  (58  Cal.  5-30) 
Martin,  Goods  of  (L.  R.  1  P.  &  D 
In  re  (98  N.  Y.  193) 
V.  Ballou  (13  Barb.  119) 
V.  Bolton  (75  Ind.  295) 
r.  Campbell  (35  Ark.  137) 
V.  Clapp  (99  Mass.  470) 
r.  Dry  Dock  Co.  (92  X.  Y. 
V.  Dupre  (1  La  An.  239) 
V.  EUerbe  (70  Ala.  320) 
V.  Hamlin  (4  Strohh.  188) 
V.  Jones  (59  Mo.  181) 
V.  Lachasse  (47  Mo.  -591) 
V.  Lapham  (38  Oh.  St.  538) 
V.  Lincoln  (4  Lea,  289) 
V.  .Alartin  (22  Ala.  80) 
V.  Martin  (131  Mass.  547) 
V.  Martin  (13  Mo.  36) 
V.  Martin  (1  Vt.  91) 
V.  Martin  (6  Watts,  67) 
V.  Mitchell  (28  Ga.  382) 
V.  Morris  (62  Wis.  418) 
V.  Osborne  (85  Tenn.  420) 
V.  Peck  (2Yerg.  298) 
V.  Fepall  (6  R.  I.  92) 
V.  Perkins  (56  Miss.  204) 
V.  Reed  (30  Ind.  218) 
V.  Reliehan  (3  W.  Va.  480) 
V.  Koach  (1  Harring.  477) 
V.  Robinson  (67  Tex.  ;;08) 
V.  Root  (17  Mass.  222) 
V.  Starr  (7  Ind.  224) 
V.  Tally  (72  Ala.  23) 
V.  White  (58  Vt.  398) 
V.  Williams  (18  Ala.  190) 
V.  AVvncoop  (12  Ind.  200) 
Martindaie  v.  Smith  (31  Kan.  270) 


Warner  (15  Fa.  St.  471)  871 

Martineau  v.  Rogers  (8  DeG.  M.  &  G. 

.328)  881 

Marvel  v.  Babbitt  (143  Mass.  226)      386,  704, 

744 

Marvin's  Estate  (Mvr.  163)  1173 

Marvin  r.  Dutcher  (20  Minn.  391)  834 

V.  Marvin  (59  Iowa,  099)  229 

Marwick  v.  Andrews  (25  Me.  525)  952 


XCll 


TABLE   OF   CASES. 


Marx  V.  McGlvnn  (88  N.  Y.  357)    4fi,  49,  4'Jl 

Mason,  In  re  (98  N.  Y.  527)  1174,  117« 

V.  IJair  (3;j  III.  194)  10-29 

V.  15o-j;(2  Mvl.  &  Cr.  443)  8.19 

V.  Bull  CiG  Ai-k.  104)  8(19 

D.  l)iinni:in  (1  iMiinf.  45fi)  84 

V.  Farnell  (12  M.  &  W.  G74)  991 

W.  Fuller  (12  La.  An.  08)  553 

V.  Ham  (30  Me.  573)  1050,  lOfiO 

V.  Holman  (10  Lea,  315)  1223 

V.  Mason  (3  Bibb,  448) 

V.  M.  E.  Church  (27  N.  J.  Eq.  47) 

V.  O'Brien  (42  Miss.  420) 

V.  Osfrood  (04  N.  C.  407) 

V.  Peter  (1  Munf.  437) 

V.  Trustees  (27  N.  J.  Eq.  47) 

V.  White  (8  Jones  L.  421) 

Mass.  Mut.  Co.  V.  Elliott  (24  Minn.  134) 

Massev's  Appual  (88  I'a.  St.  470) 

Massev  r.  Jerauld  (101  Ind.  270) 

t'.'Modawell  (73  Ala.  421) 
Massie  v.  Hiatt  (82  Ky.  314 )    1240, 1264,  1205 
Massingale  r.  Meredith  (3  Havw.  30)  793 

Master  v.  Fuller  (4  Bro.  C.  C.'l5)  879 

Masterman  v.  Maberlv  (2  Hairg.  2S5)     57,  00 
Masters  v.  Masters  (1  P.  Wnis.  421)  987 

Masterson  v.  Girard  (10  Ala.  00)  713 

Matheney  v.  Guess  (2  Hill  S.  C.  Ch.  63)     042 


792 


890 

923 

173 

1059 

1206 

1103 

895 

841 

944,  940 

1072 

727 


Mathes  v.  Bennett  (21  N.  li.  188) 

V.  Jackson  (6  N.  H.  105) 
Mathews  v.  INIathews  (2  Ves.  Sr.  635) 

V.  Patterson  (42  Me.  257) 
Mathewson's  Petition  (12  R.  I.  145) 
Mathev  v.  Smart  (51  N.  H.  438) 
Mathis  V.  Mathis  (18  N.  J.  L.  59) 


165,  189, 
1202 
804 
975 
559 
989 


906,  1137. 
1187 

Matnev  v.  Graham  (50  Mo.  559)  257 

Matooii  V.  Clapp  (8  Oh.  248)  794 

Matson  v.  Mai^rath  (1  Robert.  080)  100 

Matthews  v.  Douthitt  (27  Ala.  273)   395,  1255 


V.  Durvee  (4  Keyes,  525) 
V.  FogI?  (35  N.  H.  289) 
V.  Fnuisham  (L.  R.  2  Eq.  669) 
V.  Hunter  (67  Mo   293) 
V.  Jones  (2  Met.  Kv.  204) 
V.  Pate  (93  Ind.  443) 
V.  Turner  (04  Md.  109) 
Ward  (10  (i.  &  J.  443) 


Matthis  V.  Hammond  (0  Rich.  Eq.  399) 
Mattill  V.  Baas  (89  Ind.  220) 
Mauck  V.  Melton  (04  Ind.  414) 
Maurer  v.  Naill  (5  Md.  -324) 
Maverick  v.  Reynolds  (2  Bradf.  360) 
Mawson  v.  Mawson  (50  Cal.  539) 
Maxon  v.  Gray  (14  R.  I.  641) 
Maxwell,  Ex  parte  (37  Ala.  302) 

Matterof  (3N.  J.  Eq.  611) 

V.  Featherston  (83  Ind.  339) 

V.  McClintock  (10  Pa.  St.  237) 

V.  Maxwell  (3  Met.  Kv.  101) 

V.  Smith  (80  Tenn.  530) 
May's  Appeal  (41  Pa.  St.  512) 
MaV  V.  Bennett  (1  Riiss.  Ch.  370) 
'v.  Bradlee(127  Mass.  414) 

V.  Fletcher  (40  Ind.  .575) 

V.  Green  (75  Ala.  102) 

V.  Mav(28  Ala.  141) 

V.  Parham  (68  Ala.  253) 

V.  Rumnev  (1  Mich.  1) 

V.  Taylor  "(27  Tex.  125) 


237 

1200 

974 

289 

809 

136 

993 

302,  305 

910 

240 

59 

517 

43 

215 

255 

540 

513 

936 

1187 

54,  5.T 

1228 

937 

990 

41.  48 

221 

1137,  1148,  1107 

351,  980 

1041 

235,  274 

1057 


Page 
Mav  V.  Vann  (15  Fla.  553)  802 

MaVall,  Appellant  (29  Me.  474)  953 

Mavberrv's  Appeal  (33  Pa.  St.  258)  1167 

Mavberrv  v.  McClurj,-  (51  Mo.  250)  815 

MaVburrV  v.  Brien  (15  Pet.  21)-  233,  261 

.Mavburv  v.  Gradv  (07  Ala.  147)  904,  987 

Maves  r.  Houston  (01  Tex.  690)  579 

'  V.  Jones  (02  Tex.  305)  1264,  1272 

Mavlield  v.  Kil^our  (31  Md.  240)  609 

Mavnard  v.  Mavnard  (30  Hun,  227)      22,  305 
'v.  Vinton  (59  Mich.  139)  40,  48,  08 

Mavo  V.  Bland  (4  Md.  Ch.  484)  965 

'  V.  ChuRv  (.J7  Jlis.s.  674)  1132 

V.  Hamlin  (73  Me.  182)  244 

f.  Jones  (78  N.  C.  402)  35,  37 

I'.  Whitson  (2  Jones  L.  231)  3-36 

Mayor  v.  Johnson  (3  Lev.  35)  416 

Ma"ys  V.  Huaers  (37  Ark.  155)  1020.  1028 

Mazvck  V.  Vanderhorst  (Bai.  Eq.  48)  879,  915 
McAdoo  V.  Thompson  (72  N.  C.  408)  1129 
McAlee  r.  Bettis  (72  N.  C.  28)  206 

V.  Phillips  (25  Oh.  St.  374)  1129 

McAlister  v.  Butterfield  (31  Ind.  25)  892 

r.  Novenger  (54  Mo.  251)  227 

McAllister  ■;;.  McAllister  (46  Vt.  272)  893,  923 
McAnnulty  v.  McAnnnltv  (120  III.  26)  107 
McAnulty'f.  Hodi^es  (33  Miss.  579)  1087 

V.  M'cClav  (10  Neb.  418)  362 

McArthur  v.  Franklin  (15  Oh.  St.  485)       237 
V.  Scott  (113  U.  S.  340)        407,  469,  499, 
502   942 
IMcAuley  v.  Wilson  (1  Dev.  Eq.  276)  930,  932 
McBaiirc.  Wimbish  (27  Ga.  259)  439 

McBeth  r.  Hunt  (2  Strob.  335)  529,  533 

r.  McBeth  (11  Ala.  598)  482 

JIcBrifle's  Appeal  (72  Pa.  St.  480)  346 

McBride  v.  Smvth  (54  Pa.  St.  245)  880 

McCaa  v.  Wooif  (42  Ala.  389)  1241 

iSlcCabe's  Estate  (08  Cal.  519)  60 

McCabe  v.  Fowler  (84  N.  Y.  314)  707,  708 
V.  Lewis  (76  Mo.  296)  331,  372,  398,  571 
V.  Mazzuchelli  (13  Wis.  478)  201 

McCaffrey's  Estate  (38  Pa.  St.  331)  571 

McCaleb'f.  Burnett  (55  Miss.  83)  214 

McCall  V.  Lee  (120  111.  261)  815,  826,  827, 

863,  947 

V.  McCall  (15  La.  An.  527)  196 

V.  Peachy  (3  Munf.  288)  1158,  1165 

V.  Vallandingham  (9  B.  Mon.  233)       499 

McCallam  v.  Pleasants  (67  Ind.  542)  860 

McCalley  v.  Wilburn  (77  Ala.  549)  757 

McCallister  v.  Brand  (11  B.  Mon.  370)        273 

McCampbell  v.  Gilbert  (6  J.  J.  Marsh. 

592)  439 

V.  McCampbell  (5  Litt.  92)  1109 

McCandless's  Api)eal  (01  Pa.  St.  9)  842 

McCandlish  r.  Hopkins  (6  Call,  208)  523 

McCants  v.  Bee  (1  McCord  Ch.  383)  737 

McCarthy  v.  Chicago  R.  R.  (18  Kan.  46)    630 

McCartney  v.  Calhoun  (17  Ala.  301)  702 

V.  Garneau  (4  Mo.  App.  567) 


300,  548, 
866,  1194 

V.  Osburn  (118  111.  403)         361,  496.  895, 
896,899,937,  941 


V.  Osburn  (121  111.  408) 
McCartv's  Estate  (58  Cal.  335) 

Estate  (9  Phila.  318) 
McCarty  v.  Frazer  (62  Mo.  263) 

V.  Hal!  (13  Mo.  480) 
V  Kearnan  (86  111.  291) 


361,  496 

1207 

824 

653,  654, 

1140 

368 

125 


TABLE   OF   CASES. 


XCUl 


Page 
McCartv  v.  McCarty  (8  Bush,  504)  4'J8 

McCaiij^'hal  v.  Uvaii  ('27  Barb.  ;J7(5)  310 

McCaulev's  Estate  (50  Cal.  544)  211,  215 

McCauIev  v.  Biickuer  (8  S.  \V.  K.  196)  8)1 
McCaw  V.  Blewit  ^2  McCord  Ch.  90)         1 1 72, 

1219,  122 1 

McChord  V.  Fisher  (13  B.  Mon.  193)   431,  554 

McClanalian  v.  Davis  (8  How.  170)      991.  992 

V.  McClanahan  (12  ilL'isk.  379)  1193 

V.  Porter  (10  Mo.  741))  2G1 

McClav  V.  Foxworthy  (18  Neb.  295)        1034, 

1040 
McClead  v.  Davis  (83  Ind.  263)        636,  1 142, 

1143 
jNlcCIean  v.  McBean  (74  111.  134)  1264 

:\IcClearv  r.  Monke  (III:)  111.  294)  432,  433 
McCleland  r.  BideiiiMii  (5  La.  An.  503)  578 
McClellau's  Appeal  (16  Pa.  St.  110)    519,  529, 

530,  533 

McClellan  v.  Downev  (63  Cal.  520)   547.  1239 

r.  Filson  (44  Oli.  St.  184)      759,  760,  762 

McClendon  v.  Gnniilloii  (Diullev,  48)         1137 

McCliiitock's  Appeal  (58  Mich."l52)  1223, 1224 

Appeal  (29  Pa.  St.  360)  842 

McCIiiitock  V.  Dana  (106  Pa.  St,  386)        1002 

r.  Graham  (3  McCord,  553)  602 

McCloskev  V.  Gleasnn  (56  Vt.  264)    678, 1138 

McClov  v.  Ariiett  (47  Ark.  445)  214 

V.  Trotter  (47  Ark.  445)  215 

McClure  v.  Bates  (12  Iowa,  77)  358 

V.  Colcloiiyh  (5  Ala.  65)  560 

V.  McClure  (6  S.  W.  R.  44)  48,  100 

V.  Miller  (4  Hawks,  133)  624 

V.  Owens  (32  Ark.  443)  230 

V.  People  (19  111.  App.  105)    411,  414,  426 

V.  Williams  (58  Ga.  494)  1064 

McClurg  V.  Schwartz  (87  Pa.  St.  521)         247 

V.  Turner  (74  Mo.  45)  257 

McClurkeu  v.  McClurken  (46  III.  327)         200 

McColloni  V.  Hincklev  (9  Vt.  143)  857 

McComb,  E.n:  parte  (4  Bradf.  151)  1002 

McConkev  v.  McConkev  (9  Watts,  352)      160 

McConnel  i'.  Smith  (39 "ill.  279)        1030,  1072 

MeConnell  v.  McConnell  (94  111.  235)  424 

McCook  V.  Pond  (72  Ga.  150)  357 

McCord  V.  McCord  (77  Uo.  166)  122,  124 

V.  McKinlev(92  111.11)  172 

V.  Ochiltree  (8  Blackf.  15)  921 

V.  Thompson  (92  Ind.  565)  360,  365 

McCormack  v.  Kimniel  (4  111.  App.  121)     199, 

329,  1089 

McCormick  v.  McCormick  (40  Miss.  760)   691 

V.  McNeel  (53  Tex.  15)  212 

V.  Sullivant  (10  Wheat.  192)        32-5,  378, 

494,  496 

V.  Wheeler  (36  Til.  114)  333,  337 

V.  Wright  (79  Va  524)  738 

McCorn  v.  McCorn  (100  N.  Y.  511)    989, 1098 

McCown  V.  Foster  (33  Tex.  241)  1079 

MeCov  r.  Hvatt  (80  Mo.  130)  612 

v'.  JlcCo'y  (4  Hedf .  54)  47 

V.  Morrow  (18  III.  519)  1025 

V.  Payne  (68  Ind.  327)  421 

V.  Scott  (2  Rawle,  222)  1142 

McCracken  v.  Hall  (7  Ind.  30)  605 

V.  McCracken  (6  T.  B.  IMon.  342)       1165 

McCrae  v.  Hollis  (4  Des.  122)  1131 

McCrarv  v.  rasker(41  Iowa,  255)  1026 

McCraw  v.  Fleming  (5  Ired.  Eq.  348)        1247 

McCrea  v.  Harazthy  (51  Cal.  146)      468,  841, 

1257 


Pase. 
MtCrearv  v.  Tavlor  (38  Ark.  393)  505 

McCredv's  AjipL-al  (47  Pa.  St.  442)  1097 

McCreeiy  v.  Allender  (4  H.  (Si  McH.  409)    22 
MctJrubb  v.  Brav  (36  Wis.  333)  703 

McCuan  v.  Tanner  (54  Cal.  84)  217 

V.  Turrentine  (48  Ala.  68)  205,  216 

McCue  V.  Garvev  (14  Hun,  562)  762 

McCullers  v.  Haines  (39  Ga.  195)  2lU) 

McCuUoch's  Appeal  (113  Pa.  St.  247)  112 

McCullogh  V.  Campbell  (49  Ark.  367)  36,  46.  47 
('.  Weaver  (14  La.  An.  33)  1081 

McCullom  V.  Chidester  (63  III.  477)  1103 

IMcCullough's  Estate  (Mvr.  76)  64 

McCullough  V.  Copeland  (40  Oh.  St.  329)    1097 
V.  Wise  (57  Ala.  623)  714 

McCullum  r.  McKenzie  (26  Iowa,  510)       110 
McCullv's  Estate  (13  Phila.  296)  522 

McCullv  V.  Chapman  (58  Ala.  325)  10.55 

McCIune's  Estate  (76  .Mo.  200)     8-59,  865,  1195 
McCurdv  r.  IMiddlc-ton  (82  Aln.  131)  238 

V.  Neall  (42  N.  .1.  E(|.  333)  86 

McCurlev  cMeCurlev  (00  JId.  185)  624 

McCustian  v.  Kamey733  Ark.  141)    645,  674, 

844 

McCntchen  r.  McCutchen  (S  Port.  151)      074 

McDade  v.  Burch  (7  Ga.  559)  329 

McDaniel  v.  Crosbv  (19  Ark.  533)  36,  47 

V.  Douglas  (6  ilumph.  220)  269 

V.  Grace  (15  Ark.  465)  276 

V.  .Johns  (8  .Jones,  414)  696 

V.  King  (90  N.  C.  597)  892 

McDearman  v.  Hodnett  (83  Va.  281)         1223 

McDeannon  v.  Maxtield  (38  Ark.  631)  410,  412 

McDermott's  Appeal  (106  Pa.  St.  358)        612 

McDermott  r.  Haves  (00  N.  H.  9)  332 

McDonald  v.  Aten  (1  Oh.  St.  293)  1123,  1124 

V.  Burton  (68  Cal.  445)  1043 

v.  Craiulall  (43  III.  231)  206 

V.  Huttou  (8  X.  .J.  Eq.  473)  1031 

V.  IVIcDonald  (8  Yerg.  145)  1247 

V.  Webster  (2  Mass.  498)  829,  854 

V.  Williams  (16  Ark.  36)  643 

McDonnell,  Ex  parte  (2  Bradf.  32)  503 

McDonogh'a  Succession  (7  La.  An.  472)    542, 

576,  1166 

McDonogh  r.  Murdoch  (15  How.  367)        913 

INIcDonough  r.  Loughlin  (20  Barb.  238)        76 

McDougal  V.  Hepburn  (5  Fla.  568)  230 

McDowell  r.  Addnms  (45  Pa.  St.  430)        151 

V.  Branham  (2  Nott  &  McC.  572)  794 

r.  Caldwell  (2  McC.  Ch.  43)  774 

r.  Ifendrix  (67  In<1.513)  637 

r.  Hendrix  (71  Ind.  286)  637 

V.  ?^Iurdock  (1  Nott  &  McC.  237)   122, 123 

r.  Pevton  (2  Des.  313)  497 

McElmovne  v.  (Johen  (13  Pet.  312)  776 

IMcElmuVrav  v.  Loomis  (31  Fed.  Rep.  395)    188 

^IcElrov's  Case  (6  W.  &  S.  451)  33 

:McElro"v  i:  Thompson  (42  Ala  656)  705 

JIcElwiiu,  Ex  parte  (29  III.  442)  251 

McElwaine,  In  re  (18  N.  J.  Eq.  499)  66 

McElwee  >\  Ferguson  (43  Md.  479)  39 

McFadden  v.  Hefley  (5  S.  E.  R.  812)   964,  967, 

987 

i\  Hewett  (78  Me.  24)  553 

V.  Ross  (93  Ind.  134)  573,  575,  576 

McFadgen  v.  Council  (81  N.  C.  195)  578,  -580 

McFait's  Appeal  (8  Pa.  St.  290)  1 104 

McFall  V.  Sullivan  (17  S.  C.  504)  1215 

McFarland  r.  Baze  (24  Mo.  156)  102,  177 

V.  Febigers  (7  Oh.  194)  250 


XCIV 


TABLE    OF   CASES. 


Patre 
McFiuliinJ  V.  Stone  (17  Vt.  1G5)  622 

McKarlane  v.  Kaiidle  (41  Miss.  411)  1187 

Mcb'eelev's  Estate  (2  Kedf.  541)       1052.  1051) 
MiFeelv  ».  Scott  (128  Mass.  IG)  451 

MctJauIrhev  r.  Ik-iiiv  (15  H.  Mon.  383)    1239 

,  .      .  ,  '  -     .     •    »  1     ,,'.       .   il       -,..|\  1  1     Ml 


ll:i9 

1237 

213 

247 


MiGearv's'Aiipual  (G  Atl.  7G3) 
McGee  v.  Ford  (5  Siii.  &  M.  7G9) 

V.  McGoe  (91  III.  548) 

i:  McCiee  (4  Ired.  L.  105) 

V.  McNeil  (41  Miss.  17)  oo 

McGehee  v.  Jones  (41  Ga.  123)  830 

■y.  Polk  (24  Ga.  4UG)  374 

r.  Uagan  (9  Ga.  135)  5G5 

McGhee  v.  Hovt  (lOG  Pa.  St.  516)  10G7 

McGill  V.  Dennnt;  (44  Oh.  St.  645)  228 

JIcGinnis  ii.  Keiiipsev  (27  Mich.  303)  37 

Mctiirr  v.  Aaron  (1  Pa.  49)  923 

Mc(;iawn  V.  Fx.we  (74  Ga.  34)  992 

McGlinsev's  Appeal  (14  S.  &  K.  64)  701 

McGooch"'??.  McGooch  (4  Mass.  348)    519,  528 
McGovnev  v.  State  (20  Oh.  93)  552 

McGowaii  V.  McGowan  (48  Mis.s.  553)         702 
McGrath  v.  Reynolds  (116  Mass.  566)  121, 123, 

125 

V.  Sinclair  (55  Miss.  89)  200 

McGrepor  v.  Biiel  (24  N.  Y.  100)  514 

v.  McGregor  (33  How.  Pr.  450)    506,  508 


740 
523 
901 
903 
47 
730 
931 
809 
202 
835 
923 


V.  McGregor  (35  N.  Y.  218) 
McGuire  ».  Bucklev  (58  Ala.  120) 

V.  McGowan  (4  Des.  480) 
Mcllvaine  v.  Gethan  (3  Whart.  575) 
Mclntire  v.  MeConn  (28  Iowa,  480) 

V.  Morris  (14  Wend.  90) 

V.  Zanesville  (17  Oh.  St.  352) 
Mcintosh  V.  Greenwood  (15  Tex.  116) 
Mclntvre  v.  Clnrk  (43  Hun,  352) 

w.'Meldrim  (40  Ga.  490) 

V.  Zanesville  (9  Oh.  203) 
McKamie  v.  Baskerville  (7  S.  W.  E.  194)  157 
McKay  v.  Donald  (8  Rich.  331)  549 

r." Green  (3  .John.  ch.  .50)  798,  1117 

McKoan  r.  Brown  (83  Kv.  208)  229 

V.  Vick  (108  111.  373)  281,  288,  1027 

McKee's  Appeal  (96  Pa.  St.  277) 

Appeal  (104  Pa.  St.  571) 
McKee  v.  Cottle  (0  Mo.  App.  410) 

V.  McKee  (8  B.  IVIon.  401) 

V.  Reynolds  (20  Iowa,  578) 

V.  White  (50  Pa.  St.  354) 

V.  Wilcox  (11  Mich.  3.58) 
McKeegan  v.  O'Neill  (22  S.  C.  454) 
McKeehan  v.  Wilson  (53  Pa.  St.  74) 
McKeen  v.  Frost  (40  Me.  239)  384,  410,  473,  470 

V.  Oliphant  (18  N.  J.  L.  442) 

v.  Waldrnn  (25  Minn.  400)  819, 

ISIcKeithan  v.  Terry  (04  N.  C.  25) 
ISIcKenna's  Estate" (1  Leg.  Gaz.  Rep.  12) 
INIcKennan's  Appeal  (27  Pa.  St.  237) 
McKenzie's  Appeal  (41  Conn.  007) 
McKenzie  v.  Donald  (61  Miss.  452) 

V.  Pendleton  (1  Bush.  164) 


918 
902 
277 
1152 
249 
475 
201 
59 
880 


McKeown  v.  Harvey  (40  Mich.  226) 
McKey  v.  Young  (4H.  &  M.  430) 
ISI.'Kie  V.  Clark  (3  Dem.  380) 
McKim  V.  Aulhach  (130  Mass.  481) 

V.  Blake  (132  Mass.  343) 

V.  Duncan  (4  Gill,  72) 

V.  Thompson  (1  Bland,  150) 
McKinley's  Estate  (49  Cal.  152) 
McKinley  v.  Lamb  (04  Barb.  199) 

V.  McGregor  (10  Iowa,  111) 


811 

1209 

1070 

705 

545 

948 

255 

423 

680 

702 

1175 

737,  738 

551 

1168,  1174 

799 

814 

69 

623 


Page 

McKinney  v.  Abbott  (49  Tex.  371)  140 

Mclvinster  v.  Smith  (27  Conn.  628)  955 

McKinzie  v.  Hill  (51  Mo.  303)      842,  844,  847 

McKnii^ht  V.  Morgan  (2  Barb.  171)     631,  658 

V.  Walsh  (23  N.  J.  Eq.  130)  1012 

McLachlan  r.  McLachlan  (9  Pai.  534)         952 

McLain  v.  Carson  (4  Ark.  164)  287 

McLane  v.  Belvin  (47  Tex.  493)  800,  811 

V.  Johnson  (43  Vt.  48)  6".l,  058 

V.  Paschal  (47  Tex   305)  210,  216 

V.  Spence  (0  Ala.  894)  672,  702 

V.  Spence  (11  Ala.  172)  672 

McLaren  «■.  Clark  (02  Ga.  106)  274 

McLaughlin's  Will  (Tuck.  79)  502 

McLaughlin  v.  Jannev  (0  Grat.  009)         1050 

r.  McDevitt  (63  N.  Y.  213)  48 

r.  ^IcLaughlin  (16  Mo.  242)  231,  632 

V.  McLaughlin  (20  N.  J.  En.  190)       257. 

258,  262 

V.  McLaughlin  (22  N.  J.  Eq.  505)         257 

V.  McLaughlin  (4  Oh.  St.  508)  326 

V.  Newton  (53  N.  H.  531)  821,  822 

V.  Winner  (03  Wis.  120)  707 

McLaurin  r.  Thompson  (Dud.  335)  574 

McLean,  Succession  of  (12  La.  An.  222)    1045 

V.  Bergner  (80  Mo.  414)  1127 

V.  Leach  (68  N.  C.  95)  798 

V.  McLean  (88  N.  C.  394)  757 

V.  Meek  (18  How.  10)  360,  301 

V.  Robertson  (120  Mass.  537)  980 

V.  Wade  (53  I'a.  St.  146)  356 

»;  Weeks  (01  Me.  277)         631,  632,  1070 

McLeery  v.  McLeerv  (65  Me.  172)  205 

JlcLella'n's  Appeal  (76  Pa.  St. 235)  1126 

McLellan  v.  Lunt  (14  Me.  254)  675 

JIcLemore  v.  Blocker  (Harp.  Eq.  272)        638 

McLeod  V.  Dell  (9  Fla.  427)  916,  917 

v.  Dell  (9  Fla.  451)  80 

V.  Griffis  (45  Ark.  505)  1122, 1123 

McLeran  v.  Benton  (73  Cal.  329)  713 

McLoskevt^.  Reid  (4  Bradf.  334)  1012 

McLuve  v.  Steele  (14  Rich.  Eq.  105)  1217,  1222 

McMahan's  Estate  (19  Nev.  241)  1252 

McMahan  v.  Harbert  (35  Tex.  451)  089 

McMahill  v.  McMaiiill  (105  111.  596)  213 

V.  McMahill  (09  Iowa,  115)         1214,  1220 

McMahon  v.  Harrison  (6  N.  Y\  443)  408 

V.  Russell  (17  Fla.  098)  235,  237 

V.  Ryan  (20  Pa.  St.  329)  47 

McManus's  Estate  (14  Phila.  600)  170 

jMcManus  V.  McDowell  (11  Mo.  App.  436)  339, 

1183 
McMasters  v.  Blair  (29  Pa.  St.  298)  39 

Mc:\lechen    v.   McMechen    (17   W.    Va. 

083)  37, 65 

McMeekin  v.  Hvnes  (80  Kv.  343)  423 

V.  McMeekin  (2  Bush,  79)  71 

McMenamin's  Estate  (12  Phila.  510)  1108 
McMillan  v.  Rushing  (80  Ala.  402)  1083 

McMo'ine  v.  Storey  (4  D.  &  B.  189)  418,  420 
McMullen  v.  Brazelton  (81  Ala.  442)  1230 
Mc:Mullin  V.  Brown  (2  Hill  Ch.  457)  493,  1239 
jNIcMurray  v.  Shuck  (6  Bush,  111)  181 

Mc^NIurrv  f.  Stanley  (69  Tex.  227)  877,  948 
McMiirti-ie   v.  McMurtrie  (15  Nr  J.  L. 

276)  871 

McNab  V.  Stewart  (12  Minn.  407)  836 

McNabb  v.  Wixom  (7  Nev  103)  669 

McNair's  Appeal  (4  Rawle,  148)  737 

McNair  v.  Dod^e  (7  Mo.  404)  506 

I'.  Hunt  (5  Mo.  301)  697 


TABLE   OF   CASES. 


XCV 


Pafre 
McNairv  v.  Bell  (6  Yerg.  302)  406 

McNallv  V.  Brown  (5  Kedf.  372)  482 

V.  Havnes  (5y  Tex.  583)  1078 

McNamara  r.  Dwver  (7  Pai.  239)      371,  1184 

V.  McNamara'  (62  Ga.  200)  363,  366 

McNaiij^htoii  V.  McNaughton  (34  N.  Y. 

201)  946 

McNoel's  Estate  (68  Pa.  St.  412)  661 

McNeil  V.  Smith  (55  Ga.  313)  396 

McNeilledge  v.  liarclav  (11  S.  &  R.  103)    904 

V.  Galbraith  (8  S.  '&  R.  43)  904 

McNitt  V.  Turner  (16  Wall.  352)       329,  1037, 

1089 
McNiiltv  V.  Hiird  (72  N.  Y.  518)    349,  803,  826 

V.  Lewis  (8  Sm.  &  M.  520)    173,  187,  190 
McPnxton  v.  Dickson  (15  Ark.  97)  1148 

McPiierson's  Appeal  (11  Ati.  R.  205)  40 

McPherson  v.  Clark  (3  Bradf.  92)  93 

V.  Cunhff  Ul  S.  &  R.  422)  323,  325,  330, 
338,  448,  103U.  1089 

V.  Israel  (5  Gill  &  J.  60)  1165,  1173 

McQueen's  Estate  (44  Cal.  584)  1137 

McRae  v.  McRae  (3  Bradf  199)  1216 

r.  McRae  (11  La.  571)  375 

McRea  v.  Central  Bank  (66  N.  Y.  489)  606 
McRearv  v.  Robinson  (12  Sm.  &  M.318)  106, 

171) 
McRee  v.  Means  (-34  Ala.  349)  948,  949 

McRevnoIds's  Estate  (61  fowa,  585)  187 

McRevnolds  v.  Counts  (9  Grat.  242)  273 

McSorlev  v.  McSovlev  (2  Bradf.  188)  40 

McSwean  v.  Faulks  (46  Ala.  610)  1062 

McTaggart  v.  Thompson  (14  Pa.  St.  149)  42,  43 
McTaggert  v.  Smith  (14  Bush,  414)  211,  214 
McVaughters  v.  Elder  (2  Brev.  307)  385 

McVpv  v.  McVev  (51  Mo.  406)  1054,  lOfiO 
McWliirter  v.  Jackson  (10  Humph.  209)     846 

V.  Roberts  (40  Ark.  283)  241 

McWhorter  r.  Reason  (Hopk.  28)    1145,  1165 

V.  Donald  (39  Miss.  779)  809 

McWiUiams's  Appeal  (117  Pa.  St.  Ill)  844 
McWilliams  e.  Hopkins  (4  Rawle,  382)      540, 

552 
McWillie  v.  Van  Vacter  (-35  Miss.  428)  349 
Meach  v.  Meach  (24  Vt.  591)  118,  120,  125 
Meacham  v.  Edmonson  (54  Miss.  746)  208 

Mead  v.  Bvington  (10  Vt.  116)  387,  1153 

V.  Kildav  (2  Watts,  110)  797 

V.  Langdon  (22  Vt.  50)  1246 

V.  Orrery  (3  Atk.  235)  990 

V.  Sherwood  (4  Redf.  352)  1037 

V.  Willoughby  (4  Dem.  364)  1181 

Meadows  v.  Meadows  (73  Ala.  356)  1036, 

1037, 1061 
Meakin  v.  Duvall  (43  Md.  372)  109ij 

Means  v.  Evans  (4  Des   242)  887 

V.  Moore  (3  McCord,  282)  89 

Mears  v.  Mears  (15  Oh.  St.  90)  38 

Meason,  Ex  parte  (•>  Binn.  167)  780,  821 

Mebane  v.  Mebane  (4  Ired.  Eq.  131)  957 

Mechanics'  Bank  i\  Harrison  (68  Ga.  463)  3.53 
Meck's  Appeal  (97  Pa.  St.  313)  58,  60 

Meckel's  Appeal  (112  Pa.  St.  554)  1130 

Medley  v.  Dunlap  (90  N.  C.  527)  184 

Medomak  Bank  v.  Curtis  (24  Me.  36)  827 
Medsker  v.  I'.onebrake  (108  U.  S.  66)  610 

Meec'i  V.  Mcech  (.37  Vt.  414)  212,  1202 

V.  Weston  (33  Vt   561)  171 

Meehan  v.  Roiirke  (2  Bradf.  385)  71 

Meek  v.  Perry  (36  Miss.  190)  49 

Meeker  v.  Me"eker  (75  III.  260)  30 


Page 
Meeker  v.  Meeker  (37  N.  W.  R.  7.33)   41, 1149 
V.  Vanderveer  (15  N.  .J.  L.  39:i)  687 

Meeks  v.  Hahn  (20  Cal.  620)  713 

Megee  v.  Beirne  (39  Pa.  St.  50)  337 

Meier  v.  Thieman  (90  Mo.  433)  830,  834 

V.  Thieman  (15  Mo.  App.  307)  834 

Meinzer  v.  Berington  (42  Oh.  St.  325)  680,  682 
Meisenhelter's  Will  (15  Phila.  651)  82 

Melcher  v.  Stevens  (1  Dem.  123)  332 

Melia  v.  Simmons  (45  Wis.  334)  448,  451 

Melizct's  Appeal  (17  Pa.  St.  449)         243,  269 
Mellen  v.  Boarnian  (13  Sm.  &  M.  100)    1056, 

1077 

Mellick  V.  Asylum  (1  .Tac.  180)  934 

Melms  V.  Ptister  (59  Wis.  186)  735,  1024 

Meirish  v.  Milton  (L.  R.  3  Ch.  D.  27)         485 

Melone  v.  Davis  (67  Cal.  279)  1248 

Melton  V.  Da^  idson  (5  S.  W.  R.  530)  155 

Melvin  v.  Bullard  (82  N.  C.  33)  1217 

Mendenhall  v.  Mower  ( 16  S.  C.  303)  916 

Mengel's  Appeal  (116  Pa.  St.  292)  1222 

Menifee  v.  Menifee  (8  Aik.  9)  712 

Mentney  v.  Petty  (Prec.  Ch.  593)  131 

Mercein  v.  Smith  (2  Hill,  N.  Y.  210)  827 

Mercer's  Succession  (28  La.  An.  564)  97 

Mercer  v.  Hogan  (4  Mackey,  520)      320,1124 

V.  Mackin  (14  Bush,  434)  482 

u.  Newsom    23Ga.  151)  702,703 

Jlerchant's  Case  (39  N.  J.  Kq.  506)    648,  1136 

Case  (41  N.  J.  Eq.  349)  648,  1136 

Will  (Tuck.  17)  543 

Merchant  v.  Driver  (1  Sandf.  303)  797 

V.  Merchant  (2  Bradf.  432)  120,  126 

Merchants'  Bank  r.  Rawls  (21  Ga.  334)      685 

V.  Ward  (45  Mo.  310)  808 

Merchants'  Ins.  Co.  v.   Linchey  (3  Mo. 

App.  587)  809 

Mercier  v.  West  Kansas  Land  Co.  (72 

Mo.  473)  905 

Meredith's  Estate  (1  Pars.  Sel.  C.  433)       722 
Meriwether  v.  Morrison  (78  Kv.  572)  122 

Jlerkel's  Appeal  (109  Pa.  St.  235)  880 

Merkle  i'.  Township  (.35  N.  W.  R.  846)      627 
Merklein  v.  Trapnell  (34  Pa.  St.  42)  1244 

Jlerrick's  Estate  (8  Watts  &  S.  402)   346,  655 
Merrick  v.  North  (28  La.  An.  878)  1078 

Merritieid  r.  Longmire  (&',  Cal.  180)  1138,  1195 
Merrill  v.  BickfoVd  (65  Me.  118)  1097 

V.  Kmerv  (10  Pick.  507)  952 

V.  Harris  (26  N.  H.  142)   330,  1031, 1048, 

1089 

V.  Moore  (7  How.  Miss.  271)  1167 

V.  N.  E.  Ins.  Co.  (103  Mass.  245)  361 

V.  Kolston  (5  Redf.  220)  34 

V.  Sherburne  (1  N.  H.  199)  243 

Merrils  v.  Adams  (Kirbv,  247)  1200 

Merriman  r.  Lacefield  (4"Heisk.  209)  205,  1219 

Merritt  r.  Biichanon  (78  Me.  504)  1097 

V.  Bucknani    (77  Me.  253)  920 

V.  Lvon  (3  Barb.  110)  611 

V.  Merritt  (97  III.  243)  211 

V.  Merritt  (62  Mo.  150)       651,  708,  1040, 

1041 

I'.  Merritt  (43  N.  J.  Eq.  11)         988,  1002 

V.  Richardson  (14  Allen,  239)  995 

Merryfield  i'.  Longmire  (66  Cal.  180)  1 138, 1 195 

Merselis  v.  Merselis  (7  N.  J.  Eq.  557)       1123 

Meserve  r.  Meserve  (63  Me.  518)    27,  885,  886 

V.  Meserve  (19  N.  H.  240)  258 

Mesick  v.  Mesick  (7  Barb.  120)  11.50 

Messer  v.  Messer  (59  N.  H.  375)  289 


XCVl 


TABLE   OF   CASES. 


Metcalf  '•.  Fvamingham  (128  ^Mass.  370)     906 
■       r.  Metcalt(l'JAla.31'J)  '^J^. 

MeteaUe,Good«<.f(lAdd.343  400 

r.  Colles  (43  N.  J.  Kq.  HS)       1107,  Uli 
MeUjodistCUurd.    ..    ClarM41^M|c..^^^ 

V.  Remiiiicton  (1  Watts,  218) 
Metteer  v.  Wiley  (34  I(iwa,214) 
Metts-s  Appeal  (1  Whart.  7 
Metzger  v.  ML'tzi,-er  (1  Bradf.  20o) 
Meurer's  Will  (44  Wis.  3U2) 
Meyer  v.  Fogg  (7  Fla.  292) 

V.  Gossett  (38  Ark.  377) 

V.  Mever  (7  b  la.  292) 

V.  Mever  (23  Iowa,  359) 

r.  M<.lir(19  Abb.  Pr.299) 

V.  (iiuirternious  (28  Ark.  45) 

V.  Steuart  (48  Md.  423) 
Mevriek  v.  xViiderson  (14  A.  ^;  Ji..  aa; 
Michael  V.  Baker  (12  Md    158) 
Michel's  Succession  (20  La.  An.  233) 
Michener  v.  Dale  (23  I'a.  bt.  59) 


908 

207 

851 

1189 

71 

24,  70 

248,  249 

24,  TO,  408 

183,  203 

247,  275 

803 

1192 


Miller  r.  Goodwin  (8  Gray,  542) 
V.  Gre.'nhaui  (11  Uh.  St.  480) 
V.  llarri.-on  (■ii  N.  .L  Lq.  374) 
V.  Helm  CiSni.  &  M.  087) 
V.  Holt  (08  Mo.  684) 
Hurt  U2  Ga.  357) 


113, 


1223 
05 
1012 
233 
353 
702,  1088 
1009 
340. 1155 
285 
232 
1004 
765 
1103 
1213,  1214,  1222 
1219 
903 
727 
1219, 1223 
1018 
859 
377,  1239 
397,  399 
1144,  1147 
929 
608 
63 
272 
474 
932 
929 


Page 

608 

1073 

855 

745,  800 

00 


87, 


1196 

421 

352 

696 

117,  126, 

127,  129 

Michoud  V.  Girod  (4  How.  U^  S.  503)    700 
Mickel  r.  Brown  (4  Baxt  408)        707 
«.  Hicks  (19  Kan.  578  10;  0 

Micken  V.  Maxent  (6  La.  An.  2  3      11J6 
Middlebrouk  r.  Merchants'  Bank  (3  Abb.  _^^^ 

''^■'^Merc'hams'  Bank  (41  Barb.  481)       307 

V.  Merchants'  Bank  (27  How  Pr.  4.4)  307 

Middleton's  .\ppeal  (1<«  fa-  fet.  92)  002 

Middleton  t'.  Middleton  (15  Beav.  450      1106 

Milan  V.  Femberton  (12  Mo.  598  -^2^,  331 

Milburn  v.  Milburn  (00  Iowa,  411)       110,  lo7 

Mildred  v.  Morriss  (9  Keu-k.  814) 

Miles's  Will  (4  Dana,  1) 

Miles  V.  Bovden  (3  Fick.  213) 

V.  Fisher  (10  Ohio,  1) 

V.  Peabodv  (04  (ia.  729) 

D.Wheeler  (43  111.  121) 

D.  Wister  (5  Binn.  477) 

Millard  v.  Harris  (119  111.  185) 

V.  Ftamsdell  (Harr.  Ch.3/3) 
Milledge  v.  Lamar  (4  Desaus.  017) 
Millen  v.  Guerrard  (67  Ga.  284) 
Millenovich's  Estate  (5  Nev.  101) 
Miller's  Appeal  (7  Atl.  190) 
Appeal  (31  Fa.  St.  337) 
Appeal  (40  Pa.  St.  57) 
Appeal  (52Pa.  St.  113) 
Appeal  (00  Fa.  St.  404) 
Appeal  (107  Pa.  St.  221) 
Estate  (48  Cal.  105) 
Estate  (82  Pa.  St.  113) 
Estate  (3  Kawle,  312) 
Succession  (27  La.  An.  574 
Miller,  In  re  (4  Kedf.  302) 

V.  Atkinson  (03  N.  ('.  537) 

V.  Bingham  (1  Ired.  Ivi-  423) 

V.  Brown  (2  Hagg.  2  9) 

V.  Buell  (92  Ind.  482) 

V.  Carothers  (6  S.  &  R-  215) 

V.  Chittenden  (2  Iowa,  315) 

V.  Chittenden  (4  Iowa,  2.52) 

V.  Commonwealth  (2  Cent.  Rep.  830)  1123 

V.  Commonwealth  (HI  Pa.  St.  321)      r28 

V.  Congdon  (14  Gray,  114)  391 

r.  Defoor  (50  Ga.  566)  ^^^''o  2«- 

r.  Dorsev(9Md.  317)  ^^^'f'f, 

V.  Gee  (4  Ala.  359)  5*>0 


V.  Irbv(63  Ala.  477) 

V.  Iron  County  (29  Mo.  122) 

V.  Jeffress  (4  Grat.  472) 

V.  Jones  (26  Ala.  247) 

V.  Jones  (39  111.  54) 

V.  McNeill  (35  Pa.  St.  217) 

V.  Major  (07  Mo.  247) 

V.  Marckle  (27  111.402) 

V.  Meetch  (8  Fa.  St.  417) 

V.  Miller  (5  Ileisk.  723) 

V.  Miller  (82  111.  463) 

V.  Miller  (91  N.  Y.  315) 

V.  Miller  (3  Serg.  &  R.  207) 

D.  Miller  (10  Tex.  319) 

V.  Northern  Bank  (34  Miss.  412) 

V.  Palmer  (55  Miss.  323) 

V.  Fettit  (16  N.  J.  L.  421) 

V.  Philip  (5  Fai.  573) 

V.  Phillips  (9  R.  I.  141) 

V.  Redwine  (75  Ga.  130) 

V.  Reigne  (2  Hill,  S.  C.  592) 

V.  Simpson  (2  S.  W.  R.  171) 

V.  Speer  (38  N.  J.E(|.  507) 

V.  Springer  (70  Fa.  St.  209) 

V.  Steele  (04  Ind.  79) 

V.  Stepper  (32  Mich.  194) 

V.  Stump  (3  Gill,  304) 

V.  Tallev  (48  Mo.  503) 

V.  Teachout  (24  Oh.  St.  525) 

V.  Towles  (4  J.  J.  Marsh.  255) 


788.  789 

320,  320 

123,  124 

440 

281 

70 

1132 

203,  208 

511 

409,  499 

191,  192,  1209 

157 


47 

1023 

287 

1081 

804 

994 

108,  481 

732 

385 

1148,  1234 

153 

892 

1131 

245 

236 

256 

913,  922 

794,  1157 


...  Trustees  (5  Sm.  &  M.  651)  SJ]0 

V.  Umbehower  (10  S.  &  R.  31)  62.3 

V.  Williamson  (5  Md.  219)  Oil,  013,  1001 
V.  Wilson  (24  Fa.  St.  114)  ,,^,  S?. 

V.  Woodward  (8  Mo.  169)  355,  1123, 1209 


Millett  r.  Ford  (109  Ind.  159) 

V.  Millett  (72  Me.  117) 
Milligan's  Appeal  (82  Pa.  St.  389) 
Milli'kin  v.  Martin  (00  111.  13) 

V.  Welliver  (37  Oh.  St.  460) 
Million  V.  Ohnsorg  (10  Uo.  App.  432) 
Mills,  In  re  (34  Minn.  290) 
V.  Banks  (3  P.  Wms   1) 
V.  Carter  (8  Blackf  203) 
V.  Humes  (22  Md.  346) 
V.  Joiner  (20  Fla.  479) 
V.  Jones  (2  Rich.  393) 
D.  Van  Voorhies(20N.^.412) 
V.  Wildman  (18  Conn.  124) 
Millsap  V.  Stanley  (50  Ala.  319) 
Milne's  Appeal  (99  Pa.  St.  483) 
Succession  (1  Rob.  La.  400) 
Milne  v.  Milne  (17  La.  46) 
Milnes,  Goods  of  (3  Add.  55) 

V.  Slater  (8  Ves.  295) 
Miltenberger  v.  Knox  (21  La.  An.  d99 
V.  Miltenberger  (78  »Io   27) 
V.  Miltenberger  (8  Mo.  App.  306) 
Milton  V.  Hunter  (13  Bush,  163) 

V.  Milton  (14  Fla.  369) 
Miner  v.  Atherton  (35  Pa- St.  528) 

V.  Aylesworth  (18  Fed.  R.  199) 
Minkler  v.  Minkler  (14  Vt.  125) 
Minor  v.  CardwcU  (37  Mo.  350) 
V.  Dabnev  (3  Rand.  191) 


901 
803 
1245 
94 
269 
809 
841 
732 
571 
468 
824 
777 
2-37 
8.56 
1123 
332 
1173 
924 
406 
1106 
440 
477 
477 
476 
259 
980 
845 
91,  480 
358 
969 


36 


TABLE   OF   CASES. 


xcvu 


Page 

Minor  v.  Guthrie  (4  S.  W.  R.  179)  91 

V.  Mead  (3  Conn.  28'J)  570,  631,  66() 

r.  Minor(8  Grat.  1)  827 

V.  Kotrers  (40  Conn.  412)  122 

Minot  V.  Boston  Asylum  (7  Met.  41G)         (-"J^J 

V.  Norcross  (143  Mass.  32iJ)  749 

V.  Paine  (99  Mass.  101)  1003 

Minter's  Appeal  (40  Pa.  St.  Ill)  940 

Miskimins's  Appeal  (114  Pa.  St.  530)        344, 

1023,  1040 
Missouri  Historical  Society  v.  Acadcniv 

(94  Mo.  459)  929,  931 

Mitcham  v.  Moore  (73  Ala.  542)  177,  190 

Mitchel  V.  Lunt  (4  Mass.  654)       414,  416,  522 

Mitchell's  Appeal  (60  Pa.  St.  .502)  1196 

Mitchell  V.  Adams  (1  Ired.  298)  511,  582 

V.  Billingslev  (17  Ala.  391)  597 

J7.  Blain(5  Pai.588)  986 

V.  Bliss  (47  Mo.  353)  1059 

V.  Hotchkiss  (43  Conn.  9)  626 

V.  Kirk  (3  Srieed,  319)  414,  417,  427 

V.  McMullen  (59  Mo.  252)  1078,  1086 

V.  Miller  (6  Dana,  79)  2.58 

V.  Mitchell  (8  Ala.  414)     1219,  1223,  1231 

V.  Mitchell  (18  Md.  405)  9.58 

V.  Mitchell  (21  Md.  244)  ]0;)4 

V.  Morse  (77  Me.  423)  948 

V.  Overman  (13  Otto,  62)  333,  334 

V.  Pease  (7  Cush.  350)  127,  854 

V.  Presbyterian  Church  (3  Dem.  603)  932 

V.  Pvroii  (17  Ga.  416)  1194,  1195 

V.  Rice  (6  J.  J.  Marsh.  623)  410,  653 

r.  Savings  Institution  (56  Miss.  444)   836 

V.  Spence  (02  Ala.  450)  721 

V.  Trotter  (7  Grat.  136)  678 

V.  Vickers  (20  Tex.  377)  83 

V.  Word  (60  Ga.  525)  254,  265 

V.  Word  (64  Ga.  208)  185,  375,  380 

Mitchelson  v.  Piper  (8  Sim.  64)  786 

Mitchener  v.  Atkinson  (63  N.  C.  .585)       1102 

Mitford  V.  Revnolds  (1  Phillips,  185)  928 

Mix's  Appear(35  Conn.  121)  1125 

Moale  V.  Cutting  (21  Mo.  347)  1222 

Mobley  v.  (Jureton  (2  S.  C.  140)  1270 

V.  Moblev  (9  Ga.  247)  331,  1259 

V.  Nare  (67  Mo.  546)  1080 

Mock  V.  Pleasants  (34  Ark.  63)       1087,  1131, 

11.32,  11.52 
Modawell  v.  Holmes  (40  Ala.  .391)  12.56 

V.  Hudson  (80  Ala.  265)  5.50 

Moffat  r.  Loughridge  (51  Miss  211)  1167 

Moffettv.  Moffett  (67  Tex.  642)  81 

Moffitt  V.  Moffitt  (69  111.  641)  10-37,  1048 

Mogan's  Estate  (Mvr.  80)  1144 

Mohr  V.  Tulip  (40  Wis.  66)  326 

Mole  V.  Mole  (1  Dick.  310)  1009 

Mollan  V.  GrilHth  (3  Paige,  402)  1105 

Mollison  V.  Mills  (25  N.  W.  631)  841 

Monahon  v.  Vandvke  (27  III.  154)  1021 

Monck  V.  Monck  (1  Ball  &  Beat.  298)         981 
Moncrief  v.  Moncrief  (73  Ind.  587)  1079 

Monell  V.  Monell  (5  John   Ch.  283)  737 

Money  v.  Turnipseed  (50  Ala.  499)  1037 

Mong  V.  Rousch  (29  W.  Va.  119)  924 

Moninger  v.  Ramsey  (48  Iowa,  308)  210 

Monk  ».  Home  (38  Miss.  100)  ^       1037 

Monongahela  Bank  v.  Jacobus  (109  U.  S. 

275)  8.34 

Mom-oe  v.  James  (4  Munf.  194)  385,  410 

V.  Napier  (52  Ga.  385)  836 

V.  Van  Meter  (100  111.  347)  276,  277 

VOL.  I.  — g 


Page 
Monroe  r.  Wilson  (6  T.  B.  Mon.  122)  1069 
Montague  v.  Allen  (78  Va.  592)  44,  49 

v.^Self  (106  111.49)  215 

Montalvan  v.  Clover  (32  Barb.  190)  371 

MontefitH-e  v.  Guedalla  (1  De  G-  F.  &  J.  93)  978 
JMonteith   r.    Baltimore   Assoc.   (21   Md. 

426)  11-37 

Montgomery's  Appeal  (92  Pa.  St.  202)      1229 

Montgomery  i-.  Armstrong  (5  J.  J.  Marsh. 

175)  645 

V.  Dorion  (7  N.  H.  475)  22,  306 

V.  Gordon  (51  Ala.  337)  1245 

V.  Johnson  (31  Ark.  74)      .329,  1047, 1089 

V.  Perkins  (2  Met.  Kv.  448)  71 

V.  Robertson  (57  Ga.  258)  1234 

V.  Williamson  (37  Md.  421)  3,32 

Moutmollin  v.  Gaunt  (5  Dana,  405)  698 

Moody  r.  Butler  (03  Tex.  210)  1060 

r.  Fry  (3  Humph.  567)  632 

r.  Grant  (41  IMiss.  565)  3-36 

V.  Hemphill  (71  Ala.  169)  1138,  1139 

V.  Hemphill  (75  Ala.  268)  639 

V.  Hutchinson  (44  Me.  57)  1208 

V.  Moody  (29  Ga.  519)         525,  528,  1208 

V.  Moody  (11  Me.  247)  1046 

V.  Vandyke  (4  Binn.  31)  393 

Mooers  v.  White  (6  John.  Ch.  360)      22,  305, 

1025,  1033 

Moon  V.  Evans  (09  Wis.  607)  1 1 1 

V.  Stone  (19  Grat.  1-30)  897 

Moor  V.  Raisbeck  (12  Sim.  123)  103 

Moore's  Estate  (57  Cal.  437)  195 

Estate  (-57  Cal.  440)  162 

Estate  (68  Cal.  -394)  1192 

Estate  (Tuck.  41)  677 

Moore,  Ex  parte  (7  How.  Miss.  665)  27 1 

In  re  (72  Cal.  335)    1140,  1148,  1152, 1189 

V.  Beauchamp  (4  B.  Mon.  71)  1137 

V.  Beckwith  (14  Oh.  St.  129)        988,  989, 

1104 
V.  Brown  (14  Mo.  165)  815 

V.  De  La  Torre  (1  Phillim.  375)  99 

r.  Dimond  (5  R.  1.121)  9-39 

V.  Dunn  (92  N.  C.  63)  8-59 

V.  Dutson  (4  S   E.  R.  169)  8-35 

V.  Ellsworth  (51  III.  308)  1025,  1027 

V.  Felkel  (7  Fla.  44)  705 

V.  Fields  (42  Pa.  St.  467)  368 

».  Foster  (1  Bai. -370)  793 

V.  Gleaton  (23  Ga.  142)  1241 

V.  Gordon  (24  Iowa,  158)  1239 

V.  Harris  (91  Mo.  610)  2-54 

V.  Hegeman  (72  N.  Y.  -376)  879 

V.  Holmes  (32  Coin.  5-53)  660,  663 

V.  Jordan  (36  Kan.  271)        359,  362,  368. 
375   441.  442 
V.  Kent  (37  Iowa,  20)  243,  261 

V.  Kerr  (10  Serg.  &  R.  -348)  792 

V.  Lesueur  (33  Ala.  237)  1229 

V.  Lyons  (25  Wend.  119)  949 

V.  McDonald  (12  Atl.  R.  117)  48 

V.  Maguire  (26  Ala.  461)  342 

V.  Moore  (14  Barb.  27)  1042 

V.  Moore  (12  B.  Mon.  6.51)  871 

V.  Moore  (2  Bradf,  201)  31 

V.  Moore  (1  Bro.  C.  C.  127)  968 

1'.  Moore  (4  Dana,  354)  921,  931 

V.  Moore  (1  Dev.  L.  3-52)  3-33,  -571 

V.  Moore  (21  How,  Pr.  211)  825 

V.  Moore  (22  La.  An.  226)  1074 

V.  Moore  (67  Mo.  192)  41 


XCVIU 


TABLE   OF   CASES. 


Pase 

Moore  r.  Moore  (1  Phillim.  406)  99 

V.  Neil  QVJ  111.  2y(i)  329,  1059 

V.  New  York  (8  N.  Y.  110)  239 

V.  New  York  (4  Saiulf.  45U)  239,  242 

V.  Pafje  (111  U.  S.  117)  609,  (ilO 

f.  Parker  (13  S.  C.  48ii)  202 

V.  Kake  (2G  N.  .1.  L.  574)  248 

V.  Kandolpli  (70  Ala.  575)  1147,  1173 

V.  Rawlins  (45  Me.  493)  229 

V.  Kidgewav  (1  B.  Mon.  234)  507 

V.  Rogers  (19  111.  347)  815 

V.  Sanders  (15  S.  C.  440)  955 

V.  Shields  (08  N.  C.  327)  1272 

«.  Smith  (24  111.512)  602 

V.  Smith  (5  Me.  490)  465 

V.  Smith  (11  Rich.  569)  450,  460 

V.  Spier  (80  Ala.  129)  49,  68,  1202 

V.  State  (49  Ind.  558)  558,  559 

V.  Steele  (10  Ilinnph.  .562)   24,  77,  472,  473 

t'.  Stephens  (97  Ind.  271)  61 

r.  Thornton  (7  Grat.  99)  641,  642 

V.  Waller  (2  Rand.  418)  258 

V.  Ware  (51  Miss.  206)  1038 

V.  Weaver  (10  Gray,  305)  896 

V.  Weaver  (53  Iowa,  11)  140 

r.  Willett  (2  Hilt.  522)  739 

V.  Wingate  (53  Mo.  398)  1054 

Moores's  Appeals  (34  Pa.  St.  411)  287 

Moores  v.  Moores  (41  N.  J.  L.  440)  720 

Moorman  v.  Smoot  (28  (irat.  80)  1002 

Mootrie  r.  Hunt  (4  Bradf.  173)  402 

Moran  v.  Dillehav  (8  Bosh,  434)  874 

Mordecai  v.  Bovlaii  (6  Jones  Eq.  365)   375,  898 

Morehouse  v.  Cotheal  (21  N.  J.  L.  480)        949 

r.  Ware  (78  Mo.  100)  748,  749 

Moreland  v.  Brady  (8  Or  303)  894 

jj.  Gilliam  (2r  Ark.  507)  1208 

Moren  v.  McCown  (23  Ark.  93)  357 

Morev  v.  Sohier  (03  N.  H.  507)  104,  109 

Morford  v.  Dieffenbacker  (54  Mich.  593)    328 

Morgan's  Appeal  (4  Atl.  506)  1089 

Estate  (.53  Cal.  243)  399 

Succession  (23  La.  290)  150,  1216 

Morgan,  Matter  of  (104  N.  Y.  74)      1217,  1239 

V.  Darden  (3  Dem.  203)  956 

V.  Davenport  (60  Tex.  230)  111 

V.  Dodge  (44  N.  H.  2.55)        313,  342.  435, 

448,  550,  560,  572,  892 

V.  Fisher  (82  Va.  417)  1083 

V.  Gaines  (3  A.  K.  Marsh.  613)  373 

V.  Hamlet  (113  U.S.  449)  846 

V.  Lorke  (28  La.  An.806)  568 

V.  Long  (29  Iowa,  434)  866 

1'.  Moore  (3  Grav,  319)  816 

V.  Morgan  (5  Day,  517)  915 

V.  Morgan  (83  111.  196)  762,  121)2 

V.  Morgan  (36  Miss.  348)  188 

V.  Perry  (5  Iowa,  196)  885 

V.  Rotch  (97  Mass.  396)  1 122 

V.  Smith  (25  S.  C.  .337)  236,  260 

t7.  Stevens  (78  111.287)  82.83 

V.  Wattles  (69  Ind.  260)  1086,  1087 

Moriarta  v.  McRea  (45  Hun,  564)  233 

Moritz  V  Hoffman  (35  111.  553)  609 

Morningstar  r.  Selhv  (15  Oh.  345)  470 

Morrell  v.  Dickey  (1  .John.  Ch.  153)     61,  355, 

1012 
f.  Morrell  (1  Hagg.  51)  85 

Morrice  v.  Bank  of  England  (Talb.  Cas. 

218)  ''  785 

Jlorrill  V  Carr  (2  La.  An.  807)  693 


Morrill  V.  Foster  (33  N.  H.  379)  669 

V.  Morrill  (1  Allen,  132)  362,  650 

V.  Morrill  (13  Me.  415)  416,  419 

V.  Phillips  (142  Mass.  240)  89!t 

Morris's  Appeal  (88  Pa.  St.  368)  603 

Morris  v.  Chic,  R.  I.  &  P.  R.  (65  Iowa, 
727)                                       543',  552,  567,  630 

V.  Hovle(37Ill.]50)  10-32 

V.  Kent  (2  Edw.Cli.  175)  953 

V.  Morris  (9  Heisk.  814)  177,  551 

V.  Morris  (3  Houst.  568)  823,  976 

V.  Morris  (12  111.  App.68)  1206 

V.  Morris  (1  Jones  Eq.  326)  1168, 1170 

V.  Morris  (27  Miss.  847)  495 

V.  Mowatt  (2  Paige.  586)  1109 

V.  Potter  (10  R.  1. 58)  154,  949 

V  Stokes  (21  Ga.  552)  31,  49,  484 
V.  Swanev  (7  Heisk.  591)  480 
r.  Underdown  (Willes,293)  943 

Morrison  v.  Cones  (7  Blackf.  593)  588 

V.  Dapman  (3  Cal.  255)  3-36 

u.  Lavell  (81  Va.519)  547 

V.  Morrison  (2  Dana,  13)  269 

V.  Rice  (35]Minn.436)  243 

V.  Smith  (3  Bradf.  209)  39 

Morriss  v.  Garland  (78  Va.  215)  966 

Morrow's  Appeal  (116  Pa.  St.  440)  54 

Morrow  v.  Allison  (39  Ala.  70)  1147,  1149 

V.  Bright  (20  Mo.  298)  828 

?'.  Mon-ow  (2  Tenn.  Ch.  549)  G8it 

V.  Pevton  (8  Leigh,  54)  552,  558 

V.  Scott  (7  Ga.  535)  155 

V.  Walker  (10  Ark.  569)  1192,  1199 

Morse  v.  Clark  (10  Col.  216)  839,  842 

V.  Clavton  (13  Sm.  &  M.  373)  744 

V.  Griffith  (25  La.  An.  213)  .397 

r.  Hodsdon  (5  Mass.  314)  554 

r.  Mason  (11  Allen,  36)  888,896 

r.  Morse  (42  Ind.  365)  109 

?;.  Scott  (4  Dem.  .507)  33 

V.  Stearns  (131  Mass.  389)  893 

».  Thorsell  (78  111.600)  236 

Mortimer  v.  MofFatt  (4  H.  &  IM.  503)        1000 

r.  Paull  (L.  R.2  P.  &  I).85)  402 

Morton.  Goods  of  (L.  R.  12  Prob.  D.  141)      94 

r.  Barrett  (22  Me.  2.57)  902 

r.  Hatch  (.54  Mo.  408)  367.  368 

V.  Ingram  (11  Ired.  L.  368)  72,  75,  76 

V.  Murrell  (68  (in.  142)  967 

V.  Onion  (45  Vt.  145)  104 

V.  Preston  (18  Mich.  GO)  427 

Moselin  v.  Martin  (37  Ala.  216)  395 

Mosely's  Estate  (12  Phila.  .50)  590 

Moselv  V.  Floyd  (31  Ga.  504)  7;;6 

i\  Taylor  (4  Dana,  542)  795 

Moses  V.  Moses  (.50  Ga.  9)  661,  1147 

r.  Miirgatroyd  (1  John,  Ch.  119)         596, 

645 

V.  Ranlet  (2  N.  H.  488)  8.59 

Mosher  r.  iMosher  (15  Me.  371)  230 

V.  Mosher  (32  Me.  412)  233,  234 

V  Yost  (33  Barb.  277)  594 
Mosier  v.  Zimmerman  (5  Humph.  62)  792 
Moss's  Appeal  (83  Pa.  St.  264)  1004 
Moss  V.  Helslev  (60  Tex.  426)  944,  945 

V.  Moorma'n  (24  Grat.  97)  1157 

V.  Rowland  (3  Bush.  505)  369 

V.  Sandefur  (15  Ark.  381)  681 

Mosser  r.  Mosser  (:'2  Ala.  551)  28 

Motier's  Estate  (7  Mo.  App.  514)  186,  1151. 


TABLE  OF   CASES. 


XCIX 


Mott  V.  Ackerman  (92  N.Y.  539)  718,  720,  724 

Moulton's  Petition  (50  N.  H.  532)  1200 

Moultoii,  In  re  (48  Cai.  191)  1113 

V.  Holmes  (57  Cal.  337)  084 

V.  Moulton  (70  Me.  85)  227 

V.  Smith  (12  All.  K.,  K.  I.  891)  701, 

702,  787 

Moultrie  v.  Hunt  (23  N.  Y.  394)  492,  495 

Mount  V.  Brown  (33  Miss.  500)  1004 

V.  Mitchell  (32  N.Y.  702)  332 

V.  Slack  (39  N.  J.  Eq.  230)        348,  1171, 

1200 

V.  Valle  (19  Mo.  621)  1030 

V.  Van  Ness  (34  N.  J.  Eq.  523)  1200 

Mountain  v.  Bennet  (1  Cox  Cli.  (J.  353)        44 

Mountforil  v.  Gibson  (4  East,  441)     415,  417. 

424,  427 

Mourain  v.  Poj'dras  (0  La.  An.  151)  375 

Mouton's  Succession  (3  La.  An.  501)  414 

Mower's  Appeal  (48  Mirli.  441)        1105.  1194 

Mowrey  r.  Adams  (14  Mass.  327)  300 

Mowry  v.  H  adley  ( 1 1  R.  L  370)  234 

V.  Peck  (2  K'  I.  1)0)  8ij5 

V.  Robinson  (12  R.  1. 152)  1028, 1045,1194 

V.  Smith  (12  R.  I.  255)  1225 

Mowser  r.  :\r(nvser  (87  Mo.  437)  175,  184 

Move  V.  Albritton  (7  [red.  Eq.  02)  1155 

MoVer's  Appeal  (112  Pa.  St.  290)  824 

Mover  V.  Swvicart  (125  111.  202)  1149 

Mu'ckleslon  v  '^Brown  (0  Ves.  52)  910 

Mull's  Succession  (35  La.  An.  394)  94 

Muir  V.  Thompson  (0  S.  E.  R.  309)  306 

V.  Trustees  (3  Barb.  Ch.  477)  421 

Muirhead  v.  Muirhead  (0  Sm.  &  M.  451)   527, 

530,  533,  574 

V.  Muirhead  (8  Sm.  &  M.  211)    588,  1203 

Muldoon  V.  Crawford  (14  Bush,  125)  774 

V.  Muldoon  (133  Mass.  Ill)  354 

Mulford  V.  Mulford  (40  N.  J.  Eq.  103)      045, 

606 

V.  Mulford  (42  N".  J.  Eq.  68)       503,  1003 

Mullaiiphv  V.  Countv  Court  (6  Mo.  503)    331, 

530,  571,  1205 

Mulier,  Matter  of  (29  Hun,  418)  1013 

Midler  v.  St.  Louis  Hospital  (73  Mo.  242)  32, 

37,  49 
V.  St.  Louis  Hospital  (5  Mo.  App.  390)  32, 

37,  49 

Mulligan  v.  Leonard  (46  Iowa,  692)  80,  82,  489 

Mulvey  v  .Johnson  (90  III.  457)  Siil 

Mumford  v.  Coddington  (1  Dem.  27)  345 

V.  Hall  (25  Minn.  347)  550 

Mumm  V.  Owens  (2  Dill.  475)  836 

:Mumper's  Appeal  (3  Watts  &  S.  441)       1149 

Munchus  r.  Harris  (09  Ala.  500)  201 

Mundell  v.  Green  (108  Mass.  277)  355 

Munden  v.  Bailev  (70  Ala.  03)  677,  1146, 

1147,  1152,  1154,  1158 

Mundv  V  Muudv  (15  N.  ,L  Eq.  290)  89 

Mungerw.  Perkins  (02  Wis.  499)  246 

Municipal  Courts.  Henry  (11  R.  I.  503)  1249 

Munnikliausen  v.  Magraw  (57  Md.  172)     401 

Munnikhuysen  v.  Magraw  (35  Md.  280)       52 

Munro  v.  .Jeter  (24  S.  C  29)  201 

Munroe  »'.  Barclay  (17  Oh.  St.  302)  40 

V.  Holmes  (9  Allen,  244)  1182 

r.  .lames  (4  Munf.  194)  567 

r.  People  (102  111.  400)  395 

Munsev  v.  Webster  (24  N.  H.  120)  530 

Munteith  v.  Rahn  (14  Wis.  210)  693 

Murchison  v.  Whitted  (87  N.  C.  405)        1029 


Page 
Murdock  V.  Hunt  (08  Ga.  104)  529 

V.  Ratcliff  (7  Oh.  119)  693 

Murff  r.  Frazier  (41  Miss.  408)         1230,  1232 
Alurlield's  Estate  (38  N.  W.  R.  170)  80 

Murgitroyde  v.  Clearv  (10  Lea,  53U)        1228, 

1246 
Murphree  v.  Singleton  (37  Ala.  412)  38;). 

991,  992 
Murphy's  Appeal  (8  W.  &  S.  165)  796 

Estate  (Mvr.  185)  400 

Murphv  V.  Bla^ck  (41  Iowa,  488)  470 

V.  Carter  (23  Grat.  477)  1045 

V.  Creigh'on  (45  Iowa,  179)  441 

V.  Hanrahan  (50  Wis.  485)  432 

V.  Marcellus  (1  Dem.  288)  1000 

V.  Menard  11  Tex.  673)  749 

V.  Menard  (14  lex.  02)  395.  749 

V.  Murphv  (24  Mo.  520)  70,  .530 

V.  Murphy  (2  Mo.  App.  156)      1126,  1193 
V.  New   York  R.  R.  Co.   (29  Conn. 

496)  629 

V.  Rav  (73  N.  C.  588)  835 

V.  Rulh  (24  La.  An.  74)  187 

V.  Teter  (56  Ind.  545)  1085,  1087 

V.  VauLchan  (55  Ga.  301)  767 

V.  AValker  (131  Mass.  341)  1207 

Murrav  v.  Barlee  (3  M.  &  K.  209)  25 

i'."Mumford  (6  Cow.  441)  283 

V.  Oliver  (3  B.  Mon.  1)  574 

V.  Oliver  (0  Ired.  Eq.  55)  86,  113 

V.  Ridley  (3  H.  &  McH.  171)  773 

Musgrave  i\  Down  (2  Hagg.  247)  61 

Mus'ick  r.  Beebe  (17  Kan.  47)  1122 

Muskingum  v.  Carpenter  (7  Oh.  21)  1073 

Mussault's   Executor  (T.    U.  P.  Charlt. 

2.59)  612,  582.  1254 

Musselman's  Appeal  (101  Pa.  St.  165)        303 
Estate  (5  Watts,  9)  1223 

Musser  v.  Currv  (3  Wash.  C.  C.  481)  113 

V.  Oliver  (21  Pa.  St.  302)  1228,  1229 

Mussleman's  Appeal  (65  Pa.  St.  480)  350 

Mutual  Benefit  Co.  v.  Howell  (-32  N.J.  Eq. 

140)  801 

Mutual    Benefit  Life  Ins.  Co    v.  Tisdale 

(91  U.  S.  238)  449 

Mutual  Life  Ins.  Co.  v.  Hopper  (43  N.  .1. 

Eq.387)  1268,1271 

r.  Watson  (30  Fed.  R.  653)  834 

Mutual  Sav.  Inst.  v.  EunHu  (37  Mo.  453)   231 

Mvatt  ».  Mvatt  (44  HI.  473)  582 

Mver  V.  Cole  ( 12  -lohii.  349)  795 

Mvers  v.  Daviess  (10  B.  Mon.  394)  50  i 

V.  Davis  (47  Iowa,  325)  329 

V.  Eddv  (47  Barb.  203)  109;) 

V.  Vanderbelt  (84  Pa.  St.  510)  62 

Mvrick's  Estate  (33  La.  An.  611)  1144 


Nabers  v.  IMeredith  (67  Ala.  333)  337 

Nagle's  Appeal  (13  Pa.  St.  260)  727 

Nalle  V.  Fen  wick  (4  Rand.  686)  473 

Nally  V.  Long  (50  Md.  667)  1190 

V.  McDonald  (06  Cal.  530)  810 

Nancv  i'.  Snell  (0  Dana,  148)       991,  992,  993 

Nanfan  v.  Legh  (7  Taunt.  85)  879 

Nanz  V.  Oakley  (37  Hun,  495)  559 

Napier,  In  re  (1  Phillim.  83)  4.52 

Napton  V.  Leaton  (71  Mo.  358)  103 

Nash  V.  Cutler  (16  Pick.  4!)  I)  145 

V.  Hunt  (116  Mass.  237)  41,  478 

V.  Morley  (5  Beav.  177)  934 


0 


TABLE   OF    CASES- 


Page 
Nash  r.  Simpson  (78  Me.  142)  354 

V.  YouiiK  (.-Jl  Miss.  134)  213 

Naslivilie  Kailroiid  v.  Tiiiice  (2  Heisk. 

580)  fi29 

Nasoii  V.  Smallev  (8  Vt.  118)  73() 

Nass  V.  Van  Swraringen.  (7  S.  &  R.  92)    4lti 

Nat  V.  Coons  (10  Mo.  543)  406 

National  Bank  v.  B()iine(8  Fed.  R.  115)  1204 

V.  Stanton  (110  Mass.  435)  435,  540, 

589,  055,  G7G,  793,  1040 

V.  Weeks  (53  Vt.  115)  757 

Naundorf  v.  Schumann  (41  N.  J.  Eq.  14)  720 

Naylor  v.  Moffat  (20  Mo.  120)  350,  530 

V.  Moody  (2  Biackf.  247)  358,  360 

Nazareth  lustitutiou  v.  Lowe  (1  B.  Mon. 

257)  239 

Neal  I'.  Baker  (2  N.  H.  477)  425 

V.  Charlton  (.52  Md.  495)  537 

i;.  Cosden  (34Md.  421)  881 

V.  Knox  &  Lincohi  K.  R.  (61  Me.  298)  046 

Neale's  Appeal  (104  Pa.  St.  214)  880 

Neale  v.  Hagthrop  (3  Bland  Ch.  551)        387, 

414,  745 
V.  Peay  (21  Ark.  93)  1199 

Nearpass  v.  Gilnian  (104  N.  Y.  506)  833 

Nector  V.  Gennett  (Cro.  Eliz.  466)  789 

Neda  v.  Fontenot  (2  La.  An.  782)  1084 

Needham  v.  Allison  (24  N.  H.  355)  604 

V.  Belole  (39  Mich.  487)    263,  1074,  1075, 

1152 

V.  Gillett  (39  Mich.  574)  433 

V.  Grand  Trunk  Co.  (38  Vt.  294)  628,  630 

V.  Ide  (5  Pick.  510)  41 

Needles  v.  Martin  (33  Md.  609)  920,  925 

Neel's  Appeal  (88  I'a.  St.  94)  350 

Neel  r.  Potter  (40  Pa.  St.  483)  490 

Neely  v.  Butler  (10  B.  Mon,  48)  277 

V.  Wise  (44  Iowa,  544)  145 

NefE's  Appeal  (48Pa.  St.  501)  87,101 

Appeal  (57  Pa.  St.  91)  678 

Neglev  V.  Gard  (20  Oh.  310)  1129 

Negus"  V.  Negus  (40  Iowa,  487)  110 

Nehbe  v.  Price  (2  Nott  &  McC.  328)  795 

Neibert  v.  Withera  (Sm.  &  M.  Ch.  599)      852 

Neighbors  v.  Hamlin  (78  N.  C.  42)  580 

Neil  V.  Cunningham  (2  Port.  171)      819,  1208 

Neill  V.  Cody  (20  Tex.  280)  1059,  1000 

Neilson  v.  Cook  (40  Ala.  498)  009 

Neistrath's  Estate  (66  Cal.  3:;0)  980 

Nellons  v.  Truax  (6  Oh.  St.  97)  1007 

Nelson  v.  Carrington  (4  Munf.  332)  534 

V.  Cornwell  (11  Grat.  724)     685,  991,  993, 

1247 
V.  Haeberle  (26  Mo.  App.  1)  840 

V.  Hall  (5  Jones  Eq.. 32)  708 

V.  Havner  (00  111.  487)  291,  295 

V.  Hei-kel  (-30  Kan.  450)  844 

V.  Hill  (5  How  127)  287 

V.  Hollins  (9  Baxt.  553)  611 

V.  Jaques  (1  Me.  139)  1045 

V.  Kownslar  (79  Va.  469)  1133 

V.  McGifford  (3  Barb.  Ch.  158)   71,  96,  98. 

484 
V.  Murfree  (69  Ala.  598)  1236, 1237 

V.  Nelson  (90  Mo.  400)  1222,  1223 

V.  Russell  (15  Mo,  356)  787 

V.  Smith  (12  Sm.  &  M.  318)  106 

V.  Tenner  (36  Hun,  327)  280 

V.  Wilson  (01  Ind.  255)  170 

V.  Wvan  (21  Mo.  .347)  1216,  1222 

Nesbit  V  'Glrvan  (1  Swan,  468)  154 


Page 
Nesbit  V.  Tavlor  (1  Rice,  296)  419 

Nesbitt  V.  Richardson  (14  Tex.  656)  1081 

Nesniith  v.  Dinsmore  (17  N.  H.  515)  1220 

Nettles  V.  Cunmiings  (9  Rich.  E(i.  440)       310 
r.  Elkins  (2  McCord  Ch.  182)  751 

Nettleton  v.  Dinehart  (5  Cush.  543)  624 

V.  Dixon  (2  Ind.  440)  102G,  1041 

Nettman  v.  Schramm  (23  Iowa,  521)  737 

Nevin's  Appeal  (47  Pa.  St.  230)  183 

Nevins  v.  Gourlev  (95  111.  200)  953,  1014 

New  V.  Nicoll  (73  N.  Y.  127)  757 

Newberry  v.  Hinman  (49  Conn.  1.30)  942 

Newbold,  Goods  of  (L.  R.  1  P.  &  1).  285)  519 
Newcastle   Banking  Co.  v.  Hymers   (22 

Beav.  367)  79c' 

Newcomb  v.  Goss  (1  Met.  Mass.  333)        792. 

797,  852 

V.  Smith  (5  Ohio,  447)  1024 

V.  Stehbins  (9  Met.  Mass.  540)  1142 

V.  Williams  (9  Met.  Mass.  525)    558,  5V0, 

1011,  1012 

Newcomers.  Wallace  (30  Ind.  216)  1040, 1105 

Newell  V.  Anderson  (7  Oh,  St.  12)  24S* 

t;.  Nichols  (75  N.  Y.  78)  4J7 

New  England    Co.   v.  Woodworth   (111 

U.  S.  138)  441 

New  England   Hospital   v.    Sohier   (115 

Mass.  50)  1052 

New  England  Trust  Co.  v.  Eaton  (140 

Mass.  532)  346 

Newhall  v.  Lynn  (101  Mass.  428)  237 

V.  Turnev  (14  111.  338)  745 

Newhouse  v-'Gale  (1  Redf.  217)  499,  581 

V.  Godwin  (17  Barb.  236)  475 

V.  Redwood  (7  Ala.  598)  750 

New  Jersey  v  Meeker  (37  N.  J.  L.  282)   1201 

Newkerk  v.  Newkerk  (2  Games,  345)  954 

Newland   v.  Attorney   General    (3   Mer. 

683)  928 

Newman's  Appeal  (35  Pa.  St.  339)  1097 

Estate  (16  Pac.  R.  887)  140 

Newman  v.  Jenkms  (10  Pick.  515)  444 

V.  Willetts  (52  111.  98)  494 

V.  Winlock  (3  Bush,  241)  183 

New  Orleans  v.  Baltimore  (15  La.  An. 

625)  1110,  1168 

Newsom  v.  Carlton  (59  Ga.  516)  1072 

V  Jackson  (29  Ga.  61)  625 

r.  Thornton  (82  Ala.  402)  990,  1097 

».  Tucker  (30  Ga.  71)  408 

Newson  v.  Starke  (46  Ga.  88)  921 

Newsum  v.  Newsum  (1  Leigli,  86^  645 

Newton  V.  Bennett  (1  Bro,  Ch.  359)  1139 

V.  Cocke  (10  Ark    169)  368,  512 

V.  Cox  (76  Mo.  352)  553 

V.  Marsden  (2  J.  &  Hem.  356)  962 

r.  Newton  (12  Ir   Ch.  118)  96 

V.  Poole  (12  Leigh,  112)  690, 1125 

V.  Snider  (44  Ark.  42)  122 

New  York  Conference  v.  Clarkson  (8  N. 

J.  Eq.54I)  893 

New  York,  L.,  &c.   R.  Co  ,   In   re  (105 

N.Y.  89)  949 

Niccolls  V.  Esterly  (16  Kan.  32)  835 

Nicholas  1-.  Adams  (2  Whart.  17)       117,  120, 

126 

V.  Kershner  (20  W  Va  251)  35 

V.  Purczell  (21  Iowa,  205)  203 

Nicholls  V.  Gee  (30  Ark.  135)  860 

V.  Hodges  (1  Pet.  562)  821,  1165 

Nichols,  In  re  (40  Hun,  387)  92 


TABLE  OF   CASES. 


CI 


Nichols  V.  Chapman  (9  Wend.  452) 
V.  Day  (32  N.  H.  133) 
V.  Disner{29  N.  .I.L.  293) 
V.  Disiier  (31  N.  J.  L.  4Gl) 
V.  Eaton  (91  U.  S.  716) 
V.  Nichols  (13()  Mass.  256) 


Page 

777 

1029 

457 

457 

956 

242 

V.  Shearon  (49  Ark.  75)        215,  848, 1030 

V.  Shei.ard  (63  N.  H.391)  149 

Nicholson's  Estate  (1  Nev.  518)       1150,  11  GO 

Succession  (37  La.  An.  346)  932 

Nicholson  v.  Showevman  (6  Wend.  554)     793 

Nickell  V.  Handlv  (10  Grat.  336)  9.5(; 

V.  Tomlinson  (27  W.  Va.  697)  232 

Nickelson  v.  Ini,n-am  (24  Tex.  630)  526 

Nickerson  v.  Bowly  (8  Met.  424)      1233,  1239 

Nicolas's  Succession  (2  La.  An.  97)  532 

Nicole  V.  Mumford  (Kirbv.  270)  382,  369 

Nicoll  V.  Ogden  (29  111.  323)  290 

V.  Scott  (99  111.  529)  719 

V.  Todd  (70  111.  295)  2-36 

Nightingale  v.  Buvrell  (15  Pick.  104)  897,915 

V.  Gouldbourn  (2  Phillips,  594)  928 

Niller  v.  Johnson  (27  Md.  6)  ^     _6_09 

Nimmo  v.  Commonwealth  (4  H.  &  M.  57)   773, 

«  777,  1144 

Nisbet  V.  Stewart  (2  Dev.  &  B.  24)      365,  419 

Nisbett  V.  Murray  (5  Ves.  149)  968 

Nix  V.  Bradley  (6  Uich.  Eq.  43)  607 

V.  French  (10  Heisk.  377)  1265 

Nixon  V.  Armstrong  (38  Tex.  296)  75 

V.  Bullock  (9  Yerg.  414)  792 

V.  Williams  (95  N.  C.  103)  276,  277 

Noble  r.  Burnett  (10  Rich.  505)  72,  76 

V.  Enos  (19  Ind.  72) 

V.  McGinnis  (55  Ind.  .528)  3.39 

V.  Morrev  (19  Iowa,  509)  782 

Nock  V.  Nock  (10  Grat.  106)  68 

Noddings,  Goods  of  (2  Sw.  &  Tr.  15)         510 

Noe  V.  Kern  (93  Mo.  367)  876 

Noel  v.  Ewing  (9  Ind.  37)  242,  243 

V.  Harvev  (29  Miss.  72)  1147 

Noell  V  Nelson  (2  Saund.  226)  793 

Nolan  V.  Bolton  (25  Ga.  352)  1216 

Koland  V.  Calvin  (12  Sm.  &  M.  273)  738 

V.  Turner  (5  J.  J.  Marsli.  179)  1230 

Nolasco  V.  Lurtz  (13  La.  An.  100)  1247 

Nooe  V.  Vannov  (6  Jones  Eq.  185)  974 

Noon  V.  Finnegan  (29  Minn.  418)       621,  714, 

731 

V.  Finnegan  (32  Minn.  81 )     622,  714,  731 

Noonan  v.  Bradley  (9  Wall.  394)  358 

Norfleet  v.  Riddick  (3  Dev.  221)  418 

Norman's  Will  (72  Iowa,  84)  41,  480 

«.  Baldrv  (6  Sim.  621)  790 

V.Norman  (3  Ala.  389)  12-55 

V.  Olney  (31  N.  W.  Rep.  555)  1046 

Norris's  Appeal  (71  Pa.  St.  106)  705 

Norris  o.  Callahan  (59  Miss.  140)  213 

V.  Chambers  (29  Beav.  246)  29 

V.  Clark  (10  N.  J.  Eq.  51)  2iJ8 

V.  Howe  (15  Mass.  175)  1058 

V.  Morrison  (45  N.  H.  490)  211 

V.  Moulton  (34  N.  H.  392)  210,  212 

V.  Towle  (54  N.  H.  290)  6.54 

North's  Estate  (48  Conn.  583)  145 

North  t).  Priest  (81  Mo.  561)     1125,  1152,  1197 

t:  Priest  (9  Mo.  App.  586)  1153 

V.  Walker  (66  Mo.  453)  846 

v.  Walker  (2  Mo.  App.  174)  846 

Northampton  v.  Smith  (11  Met.  390)  499, 1194 

Northcut  V.  Wilkinson  (12  B.  Mon.  408)    736 


Page 
Northcutt  V.  Northcutt  (20  Mo.  266)  66 

V.  Whipp  (12  B.  Mon.  65)  232 

Northern  Bank  of  Kentucky  v.  Roosa  (13 

Oh.  3.34)  231 

Northern  Railway  «.  Cantmi  (30  Md.347)  603 
North  Georgia  Mining  Co.  v.  Latimer  (51 

Ga.  47)  830 

North  Riyer  Meadow  Co.  v.  Shrewsbury 

Church  (22  N.  J.  L.  424)  94 

Northwestern    Conference   v.    Myers  (36 

Ind.  375)  421,  431 

Norton's  Appeal  (46  Conn.  527)  1195 

Norton  v.  Citizens'    Bank    (28    La.    An. 

354)  1043 

r.  Ci-aig  (68  Me.  275)  603 

V.  Kdwards  (66  N.  ('.  .367)  1063 

r.  Frecker  (1  Atk.  524)  843 

i:  Norton  (5  Cush.  524)  609,  1031 

V.  Palmer  (7  Cush.  523)  363,  649 

V.  Sewall  (106  Mass.  143)  625 

V.  Thompson  (68  Mo.  143)  432 

Norwalk  Bank  r.  Sawyer  (38  Oh.  St.  339)  293 

Norwood  r.  Harness  (98  Ind.  1-34)  711 

v.  Marrow  (4  Dey.  &  B.  442)  247 

Nosworthy  r.  Blizzard  (53  Ga.  668)    1056,  1065 

Xottes's  Appeal  (45  Pa.  St.  361)  176 

Nowell  r.  Nowell  (2  Me.  75)  1182 

?•.  Nowell  (8  Me.  220)  1026 

Nowler  v.  Coit  (1  Ohio,  519)  359,  1081 

Noyes  v.  Kramer  (54  Iowa,  22)  538 

«.  Phillips  (57  Vt.  229)  811 

V.  Southworth  (55  Mich.  173)        104,  108 

Nudd  V.  Powers  (136  Mass.  273)       1098,  1102 

Nugent  V.  Ladnke  (87  Ind.  482)  693 

Nuiian's  Estate  (Mvr.  238)  399 

Nunn  V.  Barlow  (ISini.  &  Stu.  588)  786,  787 

V.  Owens  (2  Strobh.  101)  503 

Nusz  V.  Groye  (27  Md.  391)  519,  520,  524 

Nutall  V.  Brannin  (5  Bush,  11)  808 

Nutt  V.  Norton  (142  Mass.  242)  106,  109 

Nutter  V.  Vickery  (64  Me.  490)    871,  901,  940, 

995 
Nutting  r.  Goodridge  (46  Me.  82)  624 

Nye   V.  Taunton   R.   R.  Co.  (113  Mass. 
277)  240 


Oakes  v.  Buckley  (49  Wis.  592)  1231 

Oberle  v.  Lerch  (18  N.  J.  Eq.  346)  12-33 

Obert  V.  Hammel  (18  N.  J.  L.  73)     320,  324, 

325,  326,  330 

V.  Obert  (12  N.  J.  Eq.  423)        1086,  1087 
O'Brien's  F>tate  (3   Dem.  156;  67  How. 
Pr.  503)  526 

Estate  (63  Iowa,  622)  527 

O'Brien,  Matter  of  (45  Hun.  284)  646 

O' Bryan  v.  Allen  (95  Mo.  68)  832 

O'Bvrne  v.  Feely  (61  Ga.  77)  24 

Ochiltree   v.  Wright  (1    Dey.  &  B.  Eq. 

336)  738 

Ochoa  V.  Miller  (59  Tex.  460)  466,  .502 

O'Conner  v.  Flynn  (57  Cal.  293)      1084,  1088 

V.  Harris  (81  N.  C.  279)  640 

O'Dee  V.  McCrate  (7  Me.  467)  680 

Odell  V.  Odell  (10  Allen.  1)  919,  920 

O'Dell  V.  Rogers  (44  Wis.  136)  470,  1085 

Odenwaelder  v.  Schorr  (8  Mo.  App.  458)  70 
Odiorne's  Appeal  (54  Pa.  St.  175)  184,  520 
O'Docherty  v.  McGloin  (25  Tex.  67)  214,  487 
O'Donnell  v.  Hermann  (42  Iowa.  60)  805 

V.  Rodiger  (76  Ala.  222)       28,  31,  36,  39 


Cll 


TABLE   OF   CASES. 


O'DriscoIl  r.  Roger  (2  Desaus.  295)  2(i',) 

Oertlc,  In  re  (:U  Minn.  lT,i)  1000 

Oliicer  c.  Uoaid  of  Missions  (47  IIun,352)  718 
Ortlev  V.  Olliuv  (I'r.  Ch.  2ti)  70.0 

Oftutt  v.  Gott'(l-2  G.  &  J.  385)  588,  1203 

V.  Offutt  (3  B.  Mon.  102)  84 

O'Gara  v.  Eisenlohr  (38  N.  Y.  290)  520 

OiTden's  Appeal  (70  Pa.  St.  501)  008 

Uadeii  r.  Astor  (4  Sandf.  311)  291 

V.  Saunders  (12  Wheat.  213)  823 

Osilvie  V.  O^ilvie  (1  Bradf.  350)  120,  1J37 
Ogle  V.  Tavloe  (49  Md.  158)  1097 

Ogiesbv  (.-.■Giiniore  (5  Ga.  50)  748 

V.  Howard  (43  Ala.  144)  570,  077 

O'Hanlin  r.  Den  (20  N.  J.  L.  31)  300,  715 

r.  Den  (21  N.  .J.  L.  582)  300 

Ohlendorf  v.  Kanne  (00  Md.  495)  533,  1172 
Okeson's  Appeal  (2  Grant  Cas.  303)  1247 

Old  V.  Little  (3  Cai.  287)  1173 

Old  South  V.  Crocker  (119  iMass.  1)  923 

Oliveira  r.  University  (Phill  Kip  09)  307 
Oliver  v.  Forrester  (90  III.  315)  284 

V.  Vance  (34  Ark.  .504)  154 

Ollifte  V.  Wells  (130  Mass.  221)  895 

Olmstead  v.  Brush  (27  Conn.  530)  1100 

Olmsted  V.  Blair  (45  Iowa,  42)  2-59 

V.  Clark  (.30  Conn.  108)  422,  420 

V.  Keves  (85  N.  Y.  ,593)  510,  042 

Ohviiie's  Appeal  (4  W.  &  S.  492)  392 

Ommanev  v.  Butcher  (1  Turn.  &  Kuss. 

200)     '  934 

Oneal  v.  Mead  (1  P.  Wms.  693)  1105 

O'Neal  V.  Tisdale  (12  Tex.  40)  545 

O'Xeale  V.  Ward  (3  Harr.  &  McH.  93)  902 
O'Neall  V.  Abnev  (2  Bai.  317)  751 

V.  Boozer  (4  Rich.  Eq.  22)  880 

O'Neil's  Appeal  (.55  Conn.  409)  1198,  1235 
O'Neil,  In  re  (27  Hun,  130)  64 

v.  Farr  (1  Rich.  80)  47,  114 

V.  Freeman  (45  N.  J.  L.  208)  849 

O'Neill  V.  Duff  (11  Phila.244)  284 

V  Smith  (33  Md.  569)  82 

O'Niel,  Matter  of  (2  Redf.  544)  525 

Onions  v.  Tvrer  (2  Vern.  741)  90 

Opening  of  Beekman  Street  (4  Bradf.  503)  591 
Opie  V.  Castleman  (32  Fed.  Rep.  511)  710 
Orcutt  r.  Orms  (3  Pai.  459)  362,  794 

Ordinary  r.  Cooley  (30  N.  J.  L.  179)  552,  553 

V.  Matthews  (7  Rich.  L.  26)  345 

V.  Smith  (15  N.  J.  L.  92)  12:;0 

V.  White  (43  N.  ,J.  L.  22)  1227 

Ordronaux  r.  Helie  (3  Sandf.  Ch.  512)  300 
Ordwav  v.  Plielps  (45  Iowa.  279)  810 

O'Reiliv  r.  Bradv  (28  Ala.  530)  284 

V.  Hendricks  (2  Sm.  &  M.  388)  419 

r.  IMever  (4  Dem.  161)  1147 

Orford  v.  Benton  (■iC  N.  H.  395)  277 

Ormiston  v.  Olcott  (84  N.  Y.  339)  709,  711 
Orndorf  v.  Hummer  (12  B.  Mon.  619)  70 

Orr-s  Estate  (29  Cal.  101)  214 

Orr  V.  Kaine  (2  Ves.  Sr  294)  001 

V.  Moses  (52  Me.  287)  873,  990 

Orrick  ?•.  Roehm  (49  Md.  72)  728,  884,  943,  971 

V.  Rohbins  (-34  Mo.  220)  257 

?•.  Vahev  (49  M...  428)  301 

Orser  v.  Orser  (5  Dem.  21)  1188 

v.  Orser  (24N.  Y.  51)  470 

Orth  V  Orfh  (37  N.  W.  R.  67)  200 

Orthwein  r.  Thomas  (13  N.  E.ist.  R.  .504)  157 
Orton  V.  Orton  (3  Abb.  App.  Dec.  411)      80S, 

985 


Osborn  V.  Bell  (5  Denio,  .370)  618 

r.  Horine  (19  111.  124)  249 

V.  Jefferson  Bank  (110  111.  130)  110 

Osborne  v.  Leeds  (5  Ves.  -309)  971 

».  McAlpine(4  Uedf.  1)  907 

V.  Moss  (7  John.  101)  420,  058 

V.  Rogers  (1  Saund.  205)  423 

Osburn  v.  Cook  (11  Cush.  532)  70 

Osdendorff,  Ex  parte  (17  S.  C.  22)  523 

O-good's  Instate  (\ivr.  153)  1052 

Osgood  V.  Breed  (if  Mass.  355)  1214, 

1218,  1222 

V.  Franklin  (2  John.  Ch.  1)  718 

V.  Spencer  (2  H.  &  G.  133)  283 

Osman  v.  Traphagen  (23  Mich.  80)     330,  735, 

1(124,1050.  1059,  1089 

Osmond  v.  Fitzrov  (3  P.  Wms.  129)  42 

Osnum  V.  Porter  (39  N.  J.  Eq.  141)  209 

Osterhoutt'.  Hardenbergh  (19  John.  200)  793 

Oswalt  r.  Moore  (19  Ark.  257)  816 

Otis's  Estate  (Mvr.  222)  1078 

Otis  V.  Prince  (li)  Gray.  .581)  961 

Otterson  v.  Gallagher  (88  Pa.  St.  355)       345, 

1235 
Otto  V.  Dotv  (61  Iowa,  23)  34 

Ould  V.  Washington  Hospital  (95  U.  S. 

303)  920,  928 

Ourvr.  DufReld  (1  Ariz.  509)  022 

Outcalt  V.  Ap])leby  (30  N.  J.  Eq.  73)        1002 
Outlaw  V.  Farmer"(71  N.  C.  31)  411,  5.54 

Overburv  v.  Overburv  (2  Show.  242)  105 

Overdeer  v.  Updegraif  (09  Pa.  St.  110)    1057, 

1063 
Overfield  v.  Bullitt  (1  Mo.  749)  387,  693 

Overly  v.  Overlv  (1  Met.  Ky.  117)       685,  809 
Overseers  v.  Gu'Uifer  (49  Me.  300)  325 

Overton  v.  Cranford  (7  Jones  L.  415)         330, 

1089 

V.  McFarland  (15  Mo.  312)  355 

V.  Sawyer  (7  Jones  L.  6)  119 

V.  Woodson  (17  Mr,.  442)  1034 

Owen  V.  Blanchar.l  (2  Cr.  C.  C.  418)  076 

V.  Bracket  (7  Lea.  448)  204 

V.  Brown  (2  Ala.  120)  791,  826 

V.  Ellis  (04  Mo.  77)  593 

V.  Hvde  (0  Yerc.  334)  230 

v.  Miller  (10  Ohio  St.  13f;)  050 

Owens  V.  Bloomer  (14  Hun,  290)  10-38 

i:  Childs  (.58  Ala.  113)  1038 

V.  Clavton  (.50  Md.  129)  1098 

V.  Coliinson  (3  Gill  &  J.  25)  1154 

r.  Couan  (7  B.  Mon.  1.52)  589 

r.  Owens  (6  S.  E.  R   794)  229 

r.  Thurmond  (40  Ala.  289)  1190 

V.  Walker  (2  Strobh.  Eq.  289)  549 

Owingst'.  Bates  (9  (Jill,  403)  510,  525,  529  531 

V.  Owings  (1  H   &  G   484)  533 

Oxenham  v.  Clapp  (1  B.  &  Ad,  313)  427 

r.  Clapp  (2  B.  &  Ad.  309)  423 

Oxley  V  Lane  (35  N.  Y.  340)  884 

Oyster  ».  Oyster  (1  S.  &  R.  422)  1221 


Pace  V.  Oppenheim  (12  Ind.  533)  436 

Pacheco's  Estate  (23  Cal.  470)  524,  579 

Packman's  Case  (0  Co.  19)  404,  587 

Padfield  V.  Padtield  (78  Til.  16)  188 

Padget  V.  Priest  (2  T.  R.  97)  415,  417 

Padgett  V.  State  (45  Ark.  495)  846 

Paff  r.  Kinney  (1  Bradf.  1)  740,  12.55 

Page's  Appeal  (71  Pa.  St.  40^)  1007,  1008 


TABLE   OF   CASES. 


cm 


Page's  Estate  (57  Cal.  238) 
Estate  (75  Pa.  St.  87) 

Page,  In  re  (118  111.  57(i) 
V.  Cook  (2(i  Ark.  122) 
V.  Foiist  (8'J  X.  C.  447) 
V.  Frazer  (14  Bush,  205) 
Gilbert  (32  IIiui,  .301) 


Page 
757 
727 
481,  482,  483 
373 
880 
952,  954 
1(37 


V.  Leapiiigvvell  (18  Ves.  4G3)         908,  'J87 
V.  Matthews  (41  Ala.  7l;i)  1037 

V.  Page  (2  Kob.  Va.  424)  489 

V.  Pat  ton  (5  Pet.  304)  789 

V.  Thomas  (43  Oh.  St.  38)  293 

V.  Tucker  (54  Cal.  121)  622,  C72,  713 

V.  Whidden  (-59  N.  H.  507)  954 

Paice    I'.  Archbishop  of  Canterbury  (14 

Ves.  3G4)  701 

Paige,  Matter  of  (G2  Barb.  47G)  499 

V.  Pai-e  (71  Iowa,  318)  2.34 

Paine  v.  Barnes  (100  Mass.  470)  730 

V.  Fox  (IG  Muss.  12.))  1048,  1052 

V.  Goodwin  (5G  Me.  411)  1194 

V.  Hall  (18  Ves.  475)  910 

V.  Nichols  (15  Mass.  2.53)  855 

V.  Parsons  (14  Pick.  318)  978,  979 

V.  Paulk  (39  Me.  15)  18G 

V.  PeniUeton  (32  Miss.  320)        1032,  1040 

v.  Ulnier  (7  Mass.  317)  620 

Painter  r.  Henderson  (7  Pa.  St.  48)  108(i 

Palmer.  A|ipellant(l  Uoug.  Mich.  422)    10G5 

V.  Haltord  (4  Kuss.  403)  915 

V.  Horn  (84  N.  V.  516)  91G 

V.  Litherlaud  (Latch,  160)  404 

V.  Maxwell  (11  Neb.  598)  419 

f.  Mikell  (2  Des.  342)  497 

V.  Palmer  (13  Gray,  326)  1026 

V.  Palmer  (55  Mich.  293)  646 

V.  Pollock  (26  iMinn.  433)  748 

V.  Simpson  (69  Ga.  792)  209 

V.  Stevens  (11  Cush.  147)  648,  731 

V.  Waller  (1  M.  &  W.  689)  797 

Palmes  v.  Stephens  (R.  M.  Charlt.  56)        759 

Palms  V.  Probate  Judge  (39  Mich.  302)    1204 

Palomares's  Estate  (63  Cat.  402)  183 

Panaud  v.  Jones  (1  Cal.  488)  36 

Pancoast  v.  Graham  (15  N.  J.  Eq.  294)        38 

Parcell  v.  McKevnolds  (71  Iowa,  623)         834 

Parcher  v.  Bussell  (11  Cush.  107)  1254 

r.  Savings  Inst.  (78  Me.  470)        116,  120 

Parchman  v.  Charlton  (1  Coldw.  381)     308, 

309 

Pardue  v.  Girens  (1  Jones  Eq.  306)  954 

Parham  v.  Parham  (6  Humph.  287)  265 

V.  Stith  (56  Miss.  465)  693,  699 

V.  Tompson  (2  J.  J.  Marsh.  159)  600 

Parish  V.  Stone  (14  Pick.  198)  121,  125 

V.  Weed  (7  S.  E.  R.  138)  8  JG 

Park  V.  Lock  (48  Ark.  133)  8.!6 

V.  Marshall  (4  Watts,  382)  752 

Parker's  Appeal  (44  Pa.  St.  309)         518,  520 

Appeal  (61  Pa.  St.  478)  375,  1130 

Parker  v.  Allen  (4  Atl.  300)     1048,  1070, 123:'. 

«.  Atfeild  (1  Salk.  311)  798 

V.  Bernal  (66  Cal.  113)  622 

I'.  Bogardus  (5  N.  Y.  309)  887 

V.  Brown  (6  Grat.  554)  502 

17.  Chambers  (24  Ga.  518)  992 

V.  Converse  (5  Griv,  336)  607 

V.  Cowell  (16  N.  H.  149)  924,  11.54 

V.  Dee  (3  Swanst.  (529.  note)         786,  794 

V.  Edwards  (4  South.  R.,  Ala.  612)       830 

V.  Gainer  (17  Wend.  559)  777 


Page 
Parker  v.  Glover  (42  N.  J.  Eq.  559)     710,  937 
V.  Grant  (91  N.  C.  338)  1238 

I'.  Gregg  (23  N.  H.  416)  857 

V.  Gwvnn(4  Md.  423)  1173 

V.  lasigi  (138  Mass.  416)  878 

V.  Kett  (1  Ld.  Ravm.  GGl;   12  Mod. 

471)  ■  •      426 

V.  Lambert  (31  Ala.  89)  816 

17.  Lewis  (2  Dev.  L.  21)  760 

17.  Linden  (44  Ilun,  518)  726 

t'.  McGaha  (11  Ala.  521)  1153 

V.  Marston  (27  Me.  196)  125 

V.  Moore  (25  N.  J.  Eq.  228)  1103 

V.  Nichols  (7  Pick.  Ill)  1046 

V.  Parker  (11  Cush.  519)        470,  473,  493 

V.  Parker  (123  Mass.  584)  952 

V.  Parker  (5  Met.  134)  949 

V.  Parker  (17  P;ck.  236)  230 

V.  Reynolds  (32  N.  J.  Eq.  290)  111.5 

V.  Small  (55  Iowa,  732)  242 

V.  Thompson  (30  N.  J.  Eq.  311)  414 

V.  Waslev  (9  Grat.  477)  873 

V.  Whiting  (6  How.  Miss.  352)  8.52 

Parkinson  v.  Jacobson  (18  Hun,  353)        1028 

Parkison  r.  Parkison  (12  Sm.  &  M.  672)      82 

Parkman  v.  Bowdoin  (1  Sumn.  359)  897 

Parks  V.  Hardev  (4  Bradf.  15)  259 

V.  J(,hnson'(5  S.  E.  R.  243)  188 

V.  Kimes  OOO  Ind.  148)  157,  879 

V.  Perrv  (2  Blackf.  74)  1102 

Parramore  ?;.  Tavlor  ( 1 1  Grat.  220)  46.  68 

Parrish  v.  V^aughan  (12  Bush,  97)  881 

Parrott  v.  Dubignon  (T.  U.   P.  Charlt. 

2G1)  620 

Parsell  i:  Strvker  (41  N.  Y.  480)  58.  59 

P=irsons's  Estate  (65  Cal.  240)  1150 

Estate  (13  Phila.  406)  1015 

Parsons  v.  Bovd  (20  Ala.  112)  2-32 

r.  Hancock  (I  Moodv  &  Malk.  330)     792 

r.  Lanoe  (1  Ves.  Sr.  189)  55 

r.  Lvman  (4  Bradf.  268)  371 

V.  LVman  (20  N.  Y.  103)  365,  371 

r.  Mills  (1  Mass.  431)  855 

V.  Parsons  (66  Iowa,  754)  41,  48,  490 

V.  Parsons  (L.  R.  8  Eq.  Cas.  260)         633 

V.  Parsons  (2  Me.  298)  83 

V.  Spauldint;  (130  Mass.  83)  564 

t'.  Winslow'(6  Ma"^s.  1G9)  963 

Partee  v.  Caut^hran  (9  Yerp;.  460)  422 

Partridge  v.  Partridge  (2  H.  &  J.  63)  975 

Paschal  v.  Acklin  (27  Tex.  173)  922 

Paschall  v.  Hailmau  (9  111.  285)  786,  821 

(.'.  Hall  (5  Jones  Eq.  108)  609 

Passmore  v.  Passmore  (1  Phillim.  216)  57 

Patch  i\  White  (117  U.  S.  210)  893,  894 

Patchen  v.  Wilson  (4  Hill,  57)  643 

Patee  v.  Mowrv  (59  Mo.  161)  1031 

Patillo  r.  Barksdale  (22  Ga.  356)  440 

Paton,  In  re  (41  Hun,  497)  897 

Patrick  I'.  Petty  (83  Ala.  420)  829 

Pattee  v.  Lowe"(36  Me.  1-38)  854 

Patten,  Goods  of  (Tuck.  56)  684 

V.  Talhnan  (27  Mo.  17)  72,  474 

Patterson,  Ex  parte  (4  How.  Pr.  34)  40 

V.  Allen  (50  Tex.  23)  4-34,  1241 

V.  Bell  (25  Iowa,  149)  1122,  1124 

17.  Cobb  (4  Fla.  481)  845 

V.  Craiff(l  Baxf.  291)  7.57 

V.  Oushaue  (115  Pa.  St.  .334)  837 

V.  Eua-lish  (71  Pa.  St.  454)  62 

V.  Hickev  (32  Ga.  156)  90 


CIV 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


Page 

Patterson  v.  High  (8  Ired.  Etj.  52)  432,  518, 

533,  1001 

V.  Lamson  (45  Oh.  St.  77)  154 

V.  Lemon  (50  Ga.  231)  329,  108!} 

V.  McCami  (3'J  Ark.  577)  848 

V.  Mills  (Gi)  Iowa,  755)  1220 

V.  Pagan  (18  S.  C.  584)  358,  302 

V.  Patterson  (49  Midi.  176)  203 

V.  Patterson  (-^5  N.  II.  104)  009 

V.  Patterson  (59  N.  Y.  574)  759,  702 

V.  Phillips  (Hemp.  09)  1153 

V.  Kamsev  (I  Ilinn.  221)  770 

V.  Swallow  (44  Pa.  St.  487)  940 

V.  Wadsworth  (89  N.  C.  407)  708 

Pattison  v.  Coons  (50  Mo.  109)  072 

Patton's  Appeal  (31  Pa.  St.  405)  401,  571 

Estate  (Mvr.  241)  707 

Patton  r.  Bostwick  (39  Mich.  218)  854 

V.  Farmer  (87  N.  C.  337)  710 

V.  Overton  (8  Humph.  192)  371 

V.  Patton  (2  Jones  Eq.  294)  974 

Patullo's  Case  (Tuck.  140)  552 

Paul  V.  Davis  (100  Ind.  422)  141 

V.  Paul  (130  Mass.  280)  199 

■y.  Stone  ai2  Mass.  27)  807 

Paup  V.  Sylvester  (22  Iowa,  371)  183 

Pawlet  V.  "Clark  (9  Cr.  292)  923 

Pawling  V.  Speed  (5  T.  B.  Mon.  580)  440 

Pawtucket  r.  Ballon  (15  R.  I.  58)  07 

Paxson  V.  Potts  (3  N.  J.  Eq.  313)  272 

Pavne  v.  Banks  (32  Miss.  292)  37 

"  /;.  Becker  (22  Hun,  28)  254 

V  Becker  (87  N.  Y.  153)  255 
r.  Uotson  (81  Mo.  145)  227 

V  Harris  (3  Strobh.  Eq.  39)  593 
V.  Hook  (7  Wall.  425)         357,  848,  1204, 

1269 

V.  Pavne  (11  B.  Mon.  138)  517 

V.  PaVne  (18  Cal.  291)  86,  266 

V.  Plppev  (49  Ala.  549)  1055 

V.  Piisev  (8  Bush.  564)  788,  843 

Parson  v.  Hadduck  (8  Biss.  293)  856,  1204 

Payton  r.  Bowen  (14  R.  I.  375)  269 

Pea  ?'.  Waggoner  (5  Havw.  242)  1039 

Peabodv's  Petition  (40  N.  H.  342)  857 

Peacock  v.  Albin  (39  Ind.  25) 

V.  Harris  (85  N.  C.  146)  707 

V.  Haven  (22  111.  23)  849 

V.  Wilson  (9  Lea,  398)  815 

Peake  v.  -lenkins  (80  Va.  293)  69,  70 

V.  Redd  (14  Mo.  79)  333 

Peale  v.  White  (7  La.  An.  449)  546,  579 

Pearce,  Ex  parte  (44  Ark.  509)  1120 

V.  Calhoun  (59  Mo.  271)       340,  355,  658, 

850, 1027,  1107,  1263 

r.  Castrix  (8  Jones,  71)  523 

V.  Goddard  (2  Brev.  360)  734 

Pearcv  v.  Green  well  (80  Kv.  616)  952 

Pearson,  Ex  parte  (76  Ala."  521)  184 

V.  Carlton  (18  S.  C.  47)  156 

V.  Darrington  (32  Ala.  227)  170,  348, 

115.3.  1155,  1159,  1188,1191 

Pease  v.  Allis  (110  Mass.  157)  72 

Peaslee  v.  Barney  (1  Chip.  331)  631 

V.  Keller  (38  N.  H.  372)  797 

V.  Peaslee  (17  N.  East.  R.  506)  264 

Peck's  Appeal  (50  Conn.  562)  99,  100 

Peck  V.  Brummagim  (31  Cal.  440)  611 

V.  Carr  (27  N.  Y.  9)  40 

V.  Henderson  (7  Yerg.  18)  622 

t;.  McKean  (45  Iowa,  18)  831 


Page 

Peck  V.  Mead  (2  Wend.  470)  605 

V.  Sturges  (11  Conn.  420)  855 

V.  Wheaton  (1  Mart.  &  Y.  353)  1270 

Peekham  v.  Newton  (15  K.  I.  321)        710,  936 

Peebles'  Ajjpcal  (15  S.  &  L'.  39)     421,  448,  508 

Peebles  v.  Case  (2  Bradf.  220)  475 

V.  North  CainliMa  (03  N.  C.  238)  622 

V.  Watts  (9  Dana,  102)   534,  553,  502, 1043 

Peele  v.  Chever  (8  Allen.  89)  1082 

Feeples  v.  Smith  (8  Rieli.90)  1208 

Peet  V.  Commerce  Co.  (8  S.  W.  R.  203)     895, 

902,  903 

Peiffer  v.  Lvtle  (58  Pa.  St.  386)  GIO 

Peirce  v.  0''Brien  (29  l''ed.  R.  402)       242,  261 

V   Whittemore  (8  Mass.  282)  857 

Peisch  V.  Dickson  (1  Mason,  9)  893 

Pelamourges  v.  Clark  (9  Iowa,  1)  41 

Pelharn  clMurrav  (04  lex.  477)  323,  330 

V.  Wilson  (4'Ark.  289)  1044 

Pell  V.  Bali  (1  Speers  Ch.  48)  966,  1104 

V.  Farquar  (3  Blackf.  331)  1079 

r.  Mercer  (14  R.  1.412)  893,929,931,1006 

Pelton  V.  Johnson  (52  Vt.  138)  1156 

Pemberton  v.  Conv  (Cro.  Eliz.  164)  504 

Pendarvis  v.  Wall"  (14  La.  An.  449)  698 

Pendergrass    v.  Pendergrass   (26   S.   C. 

19)  1039 

Pendill  v.  Neuberger  (35  N.  W.  R.,  Mich. 

249)  829 

Pendleton  r.  Pendleton  (6  Sm.  &  M.448)   527 

r.  Phelps  (4  Dav,  476)  1208 

Penhallow  v.  Dwiglft  (7  JVIass.  34)  600 

V.  Kimball  (61  N.  H.  590)  271 

Penn  r.  Guggenheimer  (70  Va  836)  1016 

Pennel  v.  Wevant  (2  Harr.  501)  494,  500 

Pennell's  Appeal  (20  Pa.  St.  515)     1070, 1233 

Pennington  v.  Gibson  (6  Ark.  447)  826 

Pennisson  v.  Pennisson  (22  La.  An.  131)     323 

Penniston's  Succession  (18  La.  An   281)  1201 

Pennock's  Appeal  (14  Pa   St.  440)  1057 

Estate  (20  Pa.  St.  208)  876 

Pennock  v.  I'.agles  (102  Pa.  St.  290)  941 

Pennsj-lvania  Co.'s  Appeal   (83  Pa    St, 

312)  1103 

Appeal  (109  Pa.  St.  479)  988 

Pennsvlvania  Co.  v.  Price  (7  Phila.  465)    917 

Penny's  Appeal  (109  Pa.  St.  32.3)  1098 

Succession  (13  La.  An.  94)  567 

Penton  v.  Robart  (2  East,  88)  598 

People  V.  Admire  (39  111.  251)  1228 

V.  Brooks  (123  III.  240)    1261,  1262,  1205 

V.  Brooks  (22  III.  App.  594)  819,849,  1207 

V.  Chapin  (101  N.  Y.  082)  1251 

V.  Conklin  (2  Hill,  N.  Y.  67)         22,  304, 

305,  309 

V.  Corlies  (1  Sandf.  228)  324 

V.  Curry  (59  III.  35)  549,  550,  551 

V.  Folsom  (5  Cal.  373)  303 

V.  Gibbs  (9  Wend.  29)  618 

t).  Gray,  72  111.343)  325 

V.  Hartman  (2  Sweeney,  576)  581 

V.  Houghtaling  (7  Cal  "348)  848 

r.  Judges  of  Erie  (4  Cow.  445)     792,  796 

V.  Lott  (27  111.  215)  550,  551,  5.50 

V.  Marine  Court  (2  Abb.  Pr.  120)       1192 

V.  Marshall  (7  Abb.  N.  Gas.  380)  326 

V.  Olvera  (43  Cal.  492)  1144 

V.  Phelps  (78  111.  147)  1155 

V.  Roach  (18  Pac.  R.  407)  306 

V.  Stacy  (11  III.  App.  .506)  547,  548 

r.  White  (11  in.  341)  4-tO 


TABLE   OF    CASES. 


cv 


Page 
People's  Bank  v.  Wilcox  (15  R.  I.  258)     324, 
325,  327,  587 
Pepoon's  Will  (91  N.  Y.  235)  475 

Pepper  r.  Sidwell  (30  Oil.  St.  454)  804 

V.  Zaliiisintjer  (94  Iiid.  88)  2(5.3,  1075 

Peppercorn  ».  Wagman  (5   DeG.  &  Sm 


230) 


721 
70 
1192 
690 
765 
333 


Peralta  r.  Castro  (6  Cal.  354) 

V.  Castro  (15  Cal.  511) 
Percival  v.  Herbemont  (1  McMull.  59) 

V.  McVov  (Uudlev  L.337) 

Perdue  v.  Bradshaw  (18  Ga.  287) 

Perin  v.  Carev  (24  How.  4(i5)       919,  922,  929 

Perkes  v.  PerUes  (3  B.  &  Aid.  489)  90 

Perkins  v.  Brown  (29  G;i.  412)  992 

V.  Cartmell  (4  Harr.  270)  1247 

V.  Emorv  (55  Md.  27)  1100 

V.  Geovfre  (45  N.  H.  453)  885 

V.  Gridley  (.50  Cal.  97)       1023,  1061,1062 

v.  Hollister  (59  Vt.  348)  705,  1139 

V.  Ladd  (114  Mass.  420)  417 

V.  Mathes  (49  N.  H.  107)       871,  966,  98(1 

r.  Micklethwaite  (1  V.  Wms.  275)       889 

V.  I'erknis  (27  Ala.  479)  334 

r.  Perkins  (39  N.  H.  163)  .37 

r.  Perkins  (46  N.  H.  110)  646 

V.  Perkins  (58  N.  H.  405)  835 

V.  Se  Ipsain  (11  R.  I.  270)  786 

V.  Simonds  (28  Wis.  90)  145 

V.  Stone  (18  Conn.  270)  375 

V.  Williams  (2  Root,  462)  302,  369 

I'.  Winter  (7  Ala.  855)  329 

Perlev  v.  Sands  (3  Edw.  Ch.  -325)  331 

Perot"'s  Appeal  (102  Pa.  St.  235)  147,  153 

Perret's  Succession  (20  I.a.  An.  86)  1207 

Perrin  v.  Lepper  (40  N.  W.  R.  8.V.))  11-37, 1138 

Perrine  v.  Pettv  (34  N.  J.  Eq.  193)      707,  709 

V.  Vreeland  (33  N.  J.  Eq.  102) 

V.  Vreeland  (33  N.  J.  E(i.  .590) 

Perrott  v.  Perrott  (14  East,  423) 

Perry  v,  Carmichael  (95  111.  519) 

V.  Clarkson  (16  Oh.  571) 

V.  Cunninc;liam  (40  Ark.  185) 

V.  De  Woif  (2  R.  L  103) 

V.  Dixon  (4  Des.  504) 

V.  Field  (40  Ark.  175) 

V.  Hale  (44  N.  H.  363) 

V.  Maxwell  (2  Dev.  Eq.  488) 


708 

708 

91 

628 

1050 

757 

513,  525 

701 

846 

994,  1103 

905,  975, 

1168,  1172 

V.  Phelips  (10  Ves.  34)  785 

V.  St.  Joseph  R.  R.  Co.  (29  Kan.  420)  440, 

628 

V.  Snioot  (23  Grat.  241)  708 

V.  West  (40  Miss.  233)  805 

V.  Wooten  (5  Humph.  524)  677,  679 

Perrvman  v.  Greer  (39  Ala.  133)  1239 

Person's  Appeal  (74  Pa.  St.  121)  1216 

Personette    v.    Johnson   (40   N.   J,   Eq. 

173)  735,  1023,  1038,  1209 

V.  Personette  (35  N.  J.  Eq.  472)  787 

Peter's  Appeal  (2  Cent.  Rep.  528)  970 

Peter  v.  Beverly  (10  Peters,  532)        718,  727, 

738,  796 

V.  Kinii  (13  Mo.  143)  809 

Peters's  Appeal  (38  Pa.  St.  239)  685 

Peters  v.  Breckeuridge  (2  Cr.  C.  C.  518)   414, 

422 
V.  Carr  (2  Dem.  22)  348 

17.  Carr(16Mo.  ,54)  878 

V.  Clendenin  (12  Mo.  App.  ,521)  1234 

V.  Leeder  (L.  J.  47  Q.  B.  573)  419 


Pa^'e 

Peters  v.  Pub.  Adm'r  (1  Bradf.  200)  531 

V.  West  (70  Ga.  343)  258 

Peterson's  Appeal  (88  Pa.  St.  .397)  727 

Peterson  v.  Chemical  Bank  (32  N.  Y.  21)  367. 

387 
Petigru  V.  Ferguson  (6  Rich.  Eq.  378)  395 
Petit's  Succession  (9  La.  An. 207)  532 

Pettee  v.  Wilniarth  (5  Allen,  144)  193 

Petters  v.  I'etters  (4  McCord,  151)  874 

Pettes  V.  Bingham  (10  N.  H.  514)  37 

Pettifer  v.  James  (Bunb.  16)  520 

Pettingiil  V.  Pettingill  (60  Me.  411)  5-53, 

1159,  1193 

Pettus  r.  Clawson  (4  Rich.  Eq.  92)  1189 

r.  .McKinnev  (56  Ala.  41)  199,  215 

v.  McKinneV  (74  Ala.  108)  2.J8 

Pettv  v.  Barrett  "(37  Tex.  84)  210 

'v.  Pettv  (4  B.  Moil.  215)  242.  245 

V.  Waiford  (11  Ala.  143)  1231 

V.  Young  (43  N.  J.  Eq.  654)  821 

Pettvjohn  r.'Woodroof  (77  Va.  507)  1001, 1002 

Pew'r.  Hastings  (1  Barb.  Ch.  452)  323 

Pevnado  v.  Pevnado  (82  Kv.  5)  913 

Pevser  v.  Weiult  (2  Uem.221)  1235,  12-36 

Pevton  r.  Smith  (2  D.  &  B.  Eq.  -325)        1187 

'  V.  Stratlon  (7  Grat.   380)  286 

Pfarr  r.  Belmont  (39  La.  An.  294)  81 

Pfeiffer  r.  Suss  (73  Mo.  245)  781,  804 

V.  Suss  (5  Mo.  App.  590)  804 

Pfirshing  V.  Falsh  (87  111.  260)  1193 

Pflugar  r.  Pultz  (43  N.  J.  Eq.  440)  .59 

Pfuelb's  Estate  (48  Cal.  643)  938,  939 

Phallon  V.  Houseal  (3  McC.  Ch.  423)  416 

Pharis  v.  Leachman  (20  Ala.  662)  750 

Phelan  v.  Bird  (20  La.  An.  355)  1040 

V.  Phelan  (13  Ala.  679)  858 

Phelps  V.  Bates,  54  Conn.  11)  878,  881 

V.  Culver  (6  Vt.  430)  034 

I'.  Funkhouser  (39  111.  401)  715 

V  Jepson  (1  Root,  48)  233 

V.  Martin  (74  Ind.  339)  575 

V.  Miles  (1  Root.  102)  1207 

V.  Morrison  (24  N.  J.  Eq.  195)  009 

V.  Phelps  (72  111.  ,545)  175,  180,  213 

V.  Phelps  (143  Mass.  570)  1102 

V.  Phelps  (20  Pick.  5-50)  612 

17.  Rice  (10  Met.  128)  827 

V.  Robbins  (40  Conn.  2.50)  1018 

Phene's  Trust  (L.  R.  5  Ch.  App.  1-39)  445 

Philadelphia's  Appeal  (112  Pa.  St.  470)     726 

Philadelphia  v.  Fox  (64  Pa.  St.  169)  9-33 

V.  Girard  (45  Pa.  St.  9)  930,  931 

Philadelphia  Trust  Co.  v.  Lippincott  (106 

Pa.  St.  295)  722 

Philbrick  v.  Spangler  (15  La.  An.  46)  62 

Philips's  Will  (1  How.  Pr.  N.  s.  291)  71 

Will  (98  N.  Y.  267)  71 

Philips  V.  Grav  (1  Ala.  226)  712 

V.  Philips"(2  Bro.  Ch.  273)  1100 

1'.  Stewart  (59  Mo.  491)  511 

Philipson  v.  Harvev  (2  Lee.  344)  1115 

Phillips,  Goods  of  (2  Add.  336,  note  b)       406 

In  re  (71  Cal.  285)  345.  1235 

V.  Alleghenv  R.  R.  (107  Pa.  St.  465)  815 

V.  Bear(32  Beav.  25)  1001 

V.  Bignell  (1  Phillim.  239)  662 

r.  Chappell  (16  Ga.  16)  1223 

V.  Chater  (1  Dem.  533)  34 

V.  Graves  (20  Oh.  St.  371)  006 

V.  McCombs  (.53  N.  Y.  494)  975,  981 

V.  McLaughlin  (26  Miss  596)  1214 


CVl 


TABLE   OF    CASES. 


'SMi 

287 

'2tj;i 

2til 
434 

200 
793 

995 
72 


Page 
I'lnllips  V.  Medburv  (7  Conn.  508)  902 

V.  raii-v  (-2-2  Beav.  279)  1100 

V.  I'liiliips  (81  Kv.  328)  1U9 

V.  Phillips  (1  Slew.  71)  741 

V.  Kicliaidson  (4  J.  J.  Marsh.  212)     1170 

V.  Slewart  (59  Mo.  491)  634,  723 

r.  Wooster  (30  N.  Y.  412)  610 

Pliiliipsbin-Kli  0.  IJurch  (37  N.  J.  Eq.  482) 
Phillip.sc  V.  Hif,ai(iii  (Bust).  L.38()) 
Philsoii  V.  Baiiiplield  (1  Brev.  21)2) 
Phiiiney  v.  Joliuson  (13  S.  C.  25) 

V.  iolinsoii  (15  S.  C.  158) 

V.  Warren  (52  Iowa,  332) 
Pliipps  v.  Aeton  (12  Bush,  375) 

V.  Addison  (7  Black f.  375) 

V.  Anneslev  (2  Atk.  57) 

v.  Earl  of  Anf;lesev  (7  Br.  P.  C.  443) 

V.  Hope  (10  Oh.  St.  580)  82,  121 

Phoebe  v.  Bog-j^ers  (1  Grat.  129)  84 

Pha-nix  r.  Livingston  (101  N.  Y.  451) 
Phvfe  V.  Phvfe  (3  Bradf.  45) 
Piatt  I'.  St.  Clair  (6  Ohio,  227) 
Picard's  Succession  (33  La.  An.  1135) 
Pickens  r   Davis  (134  Mass.  2.j2) 

v.  Dorris  (20  Mo.  App.  1) 

V.  Miller  (83  N.  C.  543) 
Pickering  v.  Coleman  (12  N.  H.  148) 

V.  Lan-don  (22  Me.  413) 

V.  Pen'dexter  (40  N.  H.  69) 

V.  Pickering  (50  N.  H.  349) 

V.  Rhotwell  (10  Pa.  St.  23) 

V.  Towers  (2  Lee,  401) 
Pickett  r.  Everett  (11  Mo   5G8) 
Pico's  Estate  (56  Cal.  413) 
Pico  V.  De  La  Guerra  (18  Cal.  422) 


1175 
900 
659 
566 
100 
956 

n;]8 

427 

97,  877 

525 

893 

922 

504 

639 

538 

803,  819 

Picot  V  Bates  (47  Mo. ^390)  '  1132 

V.  Biddle  (35  Mo.  29)  1122 

Picquet,  Appellant  (5  Pick.  65)    360,  546,  552 

V.  Swan  (4  Masoi'.  443)  609,  642 

Pidcock  r.  Potter  (68  Pa.  St.  342)  42 

Pierce  r.  Allen  (12  K.  L  510)  853 

V.  Boston   Savings   Bank  (129  Mass. 

423)  118,119 

V.  Pierce  (.38  Mich.  412)  39,  40,  46 

V.  Proprietors  (10  R.  I.  227)  591 

V.  Trigg  (10  Leigh,  406)  235,  290 

Pierson  v.  Archdeaken  (1  Ale.  &  Nap.  23)   790 

-"-  250 

596 

861 

239 

150 

1221 

401,  500 

577,  682 

941 

803 

972 

910 

6.59 

308 

1145, 


V,  Armstrong  (1  Iowa,  282) 

V.  Post  (3  Cai.  175) 
Piester  v.  Piester  (22  S.  C.  139) 
Pifer  V.  Ward  (8  Black f.  252) 
Piffefs  Succession  (39  La.  556) 
Pigg  V.  Carroll  (89  111.  205) 
Piggot's  Case  (5  Rep.  29) 
Pike's  Estate  (45  Wis.  391) 
Pike  V.  Stephenson  (99  Mass.  188) 

V.  Thorp  (44  Conn.  450) 

V.  Walle}-  (15  Gray,  345) 
Pilkington  v.  Boughev"(12  Sim.  114) 
Piman  v.  Insall  (1  Mac.  &  G.  449) 
Pimb's  Case  (Moore,  196) 
Pinckard  v.  Pnickard  (24  Ala.  250) 

1146,  1148,  1149 
Pinckney  v.  Pincknev  (2  Rich.  Eq.  218)    269. 

1104 
Pinkard  v.  Smith  (Little's  Sel.  Cas.  331)  639 
Pinkerton  v.  Sargent  (102  Mass.  568)  270 

V.  Sargent  (il2  Mass.  110)  1248 

Pinkham  v.  Blair  (57  N.  H.  226)        915,  949 

V.  Gear  (3  N.  H.  163)  2.59 

V.  Grant  (78  Me.  158)  426 


Pawe 
Pink.staff  v.  People  (59  III.  148)  548 

Piuneoj;.  Goodspeed(120  111.  524)    1151,  11.56, 

1157 

Pinnev's  Will  (27  Minn.  280)  41 

PinneV  v.  Bissell  (7  Conn.  21)  1244 

u."  Fellows  (15  Vt.  525)  611 

V.  McGregorv  (1()2  Mass.  186)      361,  442 

V.  Orth  (88  N.  V.  447)  831 

Piper's  Estate  (15  Pa.  St.  533)  1140 

Piper  r.  Clark  (18  N.  II.  41.5)  822 

V.  Goodwin  (2:)  ISIe.  251)  793 

V.  Moulton  (72  Me.  155)  76,  921,  934 

V.  Piper  (34  N.  II.  563)  164 

V.  Smith  (1  Head,  93)  284,  290 

Pirtle  r.  Cowan  (4  Dana,  302)  992 

Pistole  V.  Street  (5  Port.  04)  520,  696 

Pistorius's  Appeal  (53  Mich.  350)  761 

Pitcher  v.  Armat  (5  How.  Miss.  288)  404 

Pitkin  V.  Pitkin  (7  Conn.  307)  283,  1122 

Pitner  v.  Flanagan  (17  Tex.  7)  810 

Pitney  i'.  Everson  (42  N.  .1.  Eq.  361)         1175 

Pitt  V.  Petwav  (12  Ired.  69)  1083 

Pittard  v.  Foster  (12  III.  App.  132)  38 

Pitte  V.  Shiplev  (46  Cal.  154)  861 

Pittenger  v.  Pi'ttenger  (3  N.  J.  Eq.  156)    1037 

Pittman  v.  Johnson  (35  Hnn,  38)  1006 

V.  Pittman  (59  Miss.  203)  1057 

Pitts  V.  Jameson  (15  Barb.  310)  635 

V.  Melser  (72  Ind.  409)  502 

1-.  Singleton  (44  Ala.  ;i63)  1157 

V.  Wooten  (24  Ala.  474)  736 

Pixlev  V.  Bennett  (11  Mass.  298)  253 

Pizzala  V.  Campbell  (46  Ala.  35)         200,  257 

Place.  In  re  (1  Kedf  276)  1134 

V.  Oldham  (10  B.  Mon.  400)  775 

Plaisance's  Estate  (Mvr.  117)  508 

Planters'  Bank  v.  Davis  (31  Ala.  626)         277 

V.  Neelv  (7  How.  Miss.  80)  332 

Plasket  V.  Beebv  (4  East,  485)  1261 

Plate  V.  Koehler  (8  Mo.  App.  396)  204 

Platiier  r.  Sherwood  (6  John.  Ch.  118)        463 

Piatt's  Appeal  (80  Pa.  St.  501)  184,  .380 

Piatt  r.  Piatt  (42  Conn.  330)  292,  1232 

V.  Piatt  (105  N.  Y.  488)     757,  1028, 1270, 

1271 
Pleasants  v.  Dunkin  (47  Tex.  343)       562,  568 
V.  Glasscock  (1  Sm.  &  M.  Ch.  17)        421 
Plenty  v.  West  (1  Rob.  Ecc.  264)  97,  98 

Plimpton  V.  Fuller  (11  Allen,  139) 
Plowman  v.  Henderson  (59  Ala.  659) 
Plume  r.  Beale  (1  P.  Wms.  388) 

r.  Howard  Savings  Inst.  (46  N.  J.  L. 

211)  324,325,330,455,468 

Plumer  v.  Marchant  (3  Burr.  1380)  787 

V.  Plumer  (.30  N.  H.  5.58)  603 

Plummer  r.  Brandon  (5  Ired.  Eq.  190)        362 

V.  White  (101  111.  474) 
Plunket  V.  Penson  (2  Atk. 290) 
Plunkett  V.  Kelly  (22  Ala.  655) 
Pocock  V.  Redinger  (108  Ind.  573)       894,  895 
Poe  V.  Domic  (54  Mo.  119)  832 

Poindexter  v.  Blackburn  (1  Ired.  Eq.  286)  598 
V.  Gibson  (1  Jones  Eq.  44)  1146 

Poland  V.  Vesper  (07  Mo.  727)  214,  1076 

Pole  V.  Simmons  (49  Md.  14)  796 

V.  Somers  (6  Ves.  309)  976 

Polhemus   v.   Middleton  (37   N.  J.   Eq. 

240)  1147,  1151 

Polk  V.  Allen  (19  Mo.  467)  385 

V.  Schulenburg  (4  Mo.  Apn.  592)        12.56 

Pollard  V.  Pollard  (1  Allen,  490)        985,  1007 


1106 
527 
484 


207 
657 
433 


TABLE   OF   CASES. 


evil 


Pollard  V.  Scears  (28  Ala.  484) 
V.  Slaughter  (*J2  N.  C.  72) 
Pollev  V.  Pulley  (82  Kv.  64) 
Pollock,  Matter  of  (3  Kedf.  100) 
V.  Buie  (43  Miss.  140) 
V.  Glassell  (2  G rat.  439) 
V.  Learned  (102  Mass.  49) 


Pase 
843 
232 
1220 
1187 
1255 
474,  475 
995 
Pomerov  r.  Uailev  (43  N.  H.  118)  009 

V.  Mills  (37  N.  J.  Eq.  528)       1129,  1105, 
1107,  1108 

V  Mills  (40  N.  J.  Eq.  517)  1171 
Pond  y.  Allen  (15  R.  I.  171)                       1100 

V.  Bergt)  (10  Pai.  140)    880,  881,  890,  940 

^•.  Irvin  (113  Iud.243)  145 

V.  Kimball  (101  Mass.  105)  293,  294 

V.  Make|ieace  (2  Met.  Mass.  114)  300,  537 

Poiisford  V.  Hartley  (2  John.  &  H.  730)    1118 

Ponton  V.  Bellows  (22  Tex.  081)  12-58 

Pool's  Succession  (14  La.  An.  077)      GG9,  078 

Pool  V.  Docker  (92  111.  501)  1241 

V.  Ellis  (04  Miss.  555)        1058, 1059, 11)71 

V.  llodnett  (18  Ala.  752)  1078 

Poole  V.  Brown  (12  S.  C.  550)  340 

V.  .McLeod  (1  Sm.  &  M.  391)  337 

V.  Mimday  (103  Mass.  174)  090 

V.  Richardson  (3  Mass.  330)  41 

Poor  K.  Bovce  (12  Tex.  440)  330 

V.  Larfabee  (58  Me.  543)  1050 

V.  Kohinson  (10  Mass.  131)  1044 

Pope  ('.  Bovd  (22  Ark.  535)  843,  847,  800 

V.  Cutler  (34  Mich.  150)  492 

V.  Delavan  (1  Wend.  08)  794 

V.  Elliott  (8  B.  Mon.  50)  9.50 

V.  Havs  (.30  Ga.  539)  1198 

V.  Mathews  (18  S.  C.  444)  708 

V.  Mead  (99  N.  Y.  201)  2-38,  254 

Porche  r.  Banks  (8  La.  An.  65)       1140,  1188 

Porschet  v.  Porschet  (82  Kv.  93)  48 

Porter's  Appeal  (45  Pa.  St!  201)  902 

Appeal  (94  Pa.  St.  3-32)     872,  1215,  1221, 

1222 
Estate  (77  Pa.  St.  43)  701 

Porter  r.  Ford  (82  Kv.  191)  28 

V.  Hevdock  (6  Vt.  374)  375 

V.  HoVnsbv  (32  La.  An.  337)  499 

V.  .TacksoiJ  (95  Ind.  210)  1097,  1099 

V.  Lazear  (109  U.  S.  84)  249 

v.  Porter  (7  How.  Miss.  106)  12.11 

u.  Porter  (51  Me.  376)  1226 

V.  Sweenev  (01  Tex.  213)  803 

V  Trail  (30  X.  J.  Eq.  100)  509 
Portevant  v.  Nevlans  (3.s  Miss  104)  345 
Portis  V.  Cole  (11  Tex.  157)  758,  1140 
Portman  v.  Klemish  (54  Iowa,  198)  419 
Portsmouth  v.  Shackford  (46  N.  H.  423)  904 
Portsmouth  Ins.  Co.  v.  Revnold.s  (32  Grat. 

613)  ■  647 

Portwood  V.  Hunter  (6  B.  Mon.  538)  83 

Portz  V.  Schaiitz  (70  Wis.  497)  330,  502 

Posev  V.  Decatur  Bank  (12  Ala.  802)  844 

Post'r  Caulk  (3  Mo.  35)  506 

V.  Cavender  (12  Mo.  App.  20)  1002 

V.  Herl)ert  (27  N.  J.  Eq.  540)  943 

V.  Mackall  (3  Bland  Ch.  480)  1107 

V.  'SUi^on  (26  Hun,  187)  49,  499 

V.  Ma.son  (91  N.  Y.  5-39)  .50 

Postlewait  r.  Howes  (3  Iowa,  355)  1205 

Postley  V.  Cheyne  (4  Dem.  492)  578 

Postmaster  v.  Robbins  (1  Ware,  165)  772 

Postmaster  General  v.  Early  (12  Wheat. 

136;  554 


Potter's  Appeal  (53  Mich.  100) 
Potter  V.  Baldwin  (133  Mass.  427) 
v.  Brown  (11  R.  I.  332) 
V.  Cromwed  (40  N.  Y.287) 
V.  Cuminings  (18  Me.  55) 
V.  Everett  (7  Ired    Eq.  I."r2) 


Page 
46 
48,  490 
111 
603 
684 
255 


McAlpine  (3  Dem.  1(18)  661,  9.^/8 

I'.  McDowell  (31  Mo.  (i2)  (i09 

r.  National  Bank  (102  U.  S.  103)         8:i3 

V.Smith  (36  Ind.  231)  703,  1087 

V.  Titcomb  (7  Me.  302)  1140 

V.  Titcomb  (10  Me.  53)  666 

V.  Wheeler  (13  Mass.  104)  2i3 

Potts  V.  House  (6  Ga.  324)    31,  41,  43,  46,  47!t 

V.  Smith  (3  Rawle,  361)  745,  746,  752 

Potwine's  Appeal  (31  Conn.  381)        324,  325 

I'ouls.m  V.  Bank  (33  N.  ,J.  Eq.  618)  1199 

Povall,  Ex  parte  (3  Leigh,  810)  492 

Powel  r.  Thompson  (4  Dcs.  162)  545 

Powell's  Succession  (14  La.  An.  425)        1100 

Powell,  Matter  of  (5  Dem.  281)  530 

V.  Boon  (43  Ala.  454)  710 

V.  Burrus  (35  Miss.  605)  1165 

V.  Monson  Co.  (3  Mass.  347)         248,  250 

V.  North  (3  Ind.  392)  281,  340 

V.  Powell  (10  Ala.  900)  1104 

V.  Powell  (30  Ala.  697)  103 

V.  Powell  (80  Ala.  11)  1157 

V.  Powell  (5  Dana,  168)  1214 

r.  Powell  (18  Kan.  371)  224 

V.  Powell  (23  Mo.  App.  305)         689,  757 

V.  Stratton  (11  Grat.  792)  371 

Power's  Estate  (14  Phil.  289)  421 

Power  V.  Davis  (3  Mac  Arthur,  153)  1099 

V.  Dougherty  (83  Ky.  187)  146 

r.  Hatlev  (4"S.  W.  R.683)  141 

Powers  V.  Biakey  (10  Mo.  437)  682,  1123 

V.  Douglass  (53  Vt.  471)  685,  811 

r.  Kite  (83  N.  C.  156)  158 

V.  Powers  (57  Vt.  49)  815,  851,  8.52 

V.  Powers  (28  Wis.  059)  10H7 

Powys  V.  Mansfield  (3  Mvl.  &  Cr.  359)      981 

Prater  v.  Whittle  (16  S.  C.  40)  1206 

Prather  v.  Prather  (58  Ind.  141)  939 

Pratt's  Appeal  (117  Pa.  St.  401)  635 

Pratt  V.  Atwood  (108  Mass.  40)  156 

V.  Douglass  (38  N.  J.  Eq.  516)   266,  1016 

V.  Elkins  (80  N.  Y.  198)  836 

V.  Flamer  (5  Har.  &   L  10)  8  )8 

V.  Houghtaling  (45  Mich.  457)  1027,  1028 

V.  Kitterell  (4'Dev.  168)  1198 

V.  Leadbetter  (38  Me.  9)  879 

V.  McGhee  (17  S.  C.  428)  938 

V.  Northam  (5  Mason,  95)  1247 

V.  Patterson  (81  Pa.  St.  114)  836 

V.  Pond  (5  Allen,  59)  354 

r.  Pratt  (22  Minn.  148)  1248 

V.  Skolfield  (45  Jle.  380)  244 

V.  Stewart  (49  Conn.  339)  724 

V.  Tefft  (14  Mich.  191)  225 

Prav  V.  Fleming  (2  Ilill  Ch.  97)  697 

'v.  Hegeman  (92  X.  Y.  508)  918 

Preachers'  Aid  Society  v.  Rich  (45  IMe. 

552)  893,  923 

Preble  r.  Preble  (73  Me.  362)  835 

Prendergast,  Re  (5  Notes  of  Cas.  92)  85 

Prentice  v.  Janssen  (79  N.  Y.  478)  728 

Prentiss  v.  Prentiss  (11  Allen,  47)  110 

Presbyterian  Church  v.  McElhinnev  (61 

Mo:  540)  340,' 348,  10.38 

Prescott's  Estate  (Tuck.  430)  688 


CVlll 


TABLE   OF    CASES. 


Pape 

ya?,  y-io 

6G5 

1045,  1048 

6(15 


915 
196,  209 
293 
149 


Prescott  I'.  Pi-pscott  (7  Met.  141) 
V.  Tavbell  (1  Mass.  204) 
V.  Walker  (10  N.  H.  340) 
V.  Ward  (10  Allen,  203) 
President,  &.c.  v.  Browne  (34  Md.  450)      509 

53; 
Preslev  v.  Davis  (7  Rich.  Eq.  105) 
Pressley  v.  Ilohinsun  (57  Tex.  458) 
Prestun  v.  Colbv  (117  111.  477) 
f.  Cole  (13"Atl.  R.  788) 
V.  Cutter  (13  Atl.  874)  631,  796,  822,  841, 
842,  843 
V.  Jones  (9  Pa.  St.  456)  500 

V.  Palmer  (42  Hun,  368)  89 

Prevo  V.  Walters  (5  111.  -id)  1043 

Prewet  v.  Wilson  (103  U.  S.  22)  608 

Price's  Estate  (81  Pa.  St.  263)  1149 

Price,  Goods  of  (I>.  K.  12  Prob.  D.  137)  26,  27 
Matter  of  (67  N.  Y.  231)  1233 

V.  Bravton  (19  Iowa,  309)  597 

I'.  Cole  (83  Va.  343)  873 

V.  Courtney  (87  Mo.  387)  732 

r.  Dietrich  (12  Wis.  626)  865 

V.  Hobbs  (47  Md.  359)  261 

V.  Likens  (23  Tex.  335)  336 

V.  Mace  (47  Wis.  23)  361 

V.  Mathews  (14  La.  An.  11)  288 

V.  Maxwell  (28  Pa.  St.  23)  9",  98 

V.  Mitchell  (10  Sni.  &  M.  179)  1153 

V.  Morris  (5  McLean,  4)  368 

i:  Nesbitt  (1  Hill  Ch.  445)  568,  693 

V.  North  (1  Phillips,  Eng.  85)  1095 

V   Pickett  (21  Ala.  741)  638 

V.  Price  (6  Dana,  107)  230 

.    V.  Price  (75  N.  Y.  244)  625 

V.  Winter  (15  I'la   60)  1030 

V.  Woodford  (43  Mo.  247)  270 

Prickett  v.  Parker  (3  Oh.  St  394)  154 

Pride  v.  Watson  (7  Heisk.  232)  173 

Pridiien  v.  Pridgen  (13  Ired.  L.  2.59)  71 

Priest  r.  Cummings  (20  Wend.  338)  251 

V.  McMaster  (52  Mo.  60)  336 

V.  Watkins  (2  Hill,  225)  412,  426 

Primm  v.  Stewart  (7  Tex.  178)  446 

Prince  v.  Guillemot  (1  Rich.  Eq.  187)         775 
V.  Hazelton  (20  John.  502)  82,  489 

V.  Nicholson  (5  Taunt.  665)  785 

r.  Prince  (47  Ala.  283)  7o8 

Princeton  v.  Adams  (10  Cush.  129)  954 

Pringle  v.  Dorsev  (3  S.  C.  502)  932 

V.  Dunklev  (14  Sm.  &  M.  16)  962 

V.  Gaw  (5"S.  &  R.  536)  254 

V.  McPherson  (2  Brev.  279)  90 

■y.  McPherson  (2  Des.  524)  686 

t'.  Pringle  (59  Pa.  St.  281)  631 

Priori.'   Talbot  (10  Cush.  1)  391 

Pritchard  v.  Pritchard  (69  Wis.  373)  824,  831 
V.  State  (34  Ind.  137)  558,  5.59 

r.  Th-mpson  (95  N.  Y.  76)  921 

Pritchett's  Estate  (51  Cal.  568)        1229,  1230 
Probate  Court  v.  Angell  (14  R.  I.  495)       391, 

655 
V.  Chapin  (31  Vt.  373) 
V.  Hazard  (13  R.  I.  1) 
V.  Kent  (49  Vt.  380) 
V.  Merriam  (8  Vt.  234) 
V.  Strontr  (27  Vt.  202) 
V.  Van  Duzer  (13  Vt.  135) 
Probate  Judge  n.  Abbott  (.50  Mich.  278) 
r%Ellis(63N.  H.  .366) 
V.  Mathes  (60  N.  H.  433) 


865 
391,  .560 

8f;5 

1255 
553 
855 
435 
806,  846 
709 


PaRc 
Procter  v.  Newhall  (17  Mass.  81)     150,  1238, 

1245 
Proctor  r.  Atkvns  (1  Mass.  321)  844 

V.  Robinson  (35  Mich.  284)  992 

V.  Wanmaker  (1  Barb.  Ch.  302)  399,  571 
Proprietors,  &c.  v.  Mussev  (48  Me.  30. )  554 
Proseus  v.  Mclntyre  (5  Barb.  424)  1218 

Prosser  v.  Lealhernian  (4  How.  Miss.  237)  745 
Proud  V.  Turner  (2  P.  Wnis.  560)  1216 

Prouty  V.  Mather  (49  Vt.  415)  1066 

Provenchere's  Appeal  (67  Pa.  St.  463)        942 
Providence  Gas  Co.  v.  Thurber  (2  R.  I. 

15)  602 

Pruden  v.  Pruden  (14  Oh.  St.  251)  877,  890, 

946 

Pry's  Appeal  (8  Watts,  253)  1041 

PrVor  t:  Coggin  (17  Gii.  444)  93 

-  V.  Downey  (.50  Cal.  388)     428,  1023,  1038 

Public  Administrator  r.  Elias  (4Dem.  139)  680 

V.  Peters  (1  Bradf.  100)  399,  571 

r.  Watts  (1  Pai.  347)  400 

Public  Works  v.  Columbia  College   (17 

Wall.  521)  496,  1027,  1263,  1269 

Puekett  V.  James  (2  Humph.  565)    805,  1239, 

V.  McCall  (30  Tex.  457)  821 

Pugh  r.  Jones  (6  Leigh,  299)  364,  1201 

v.  Ottenkirk  (3  W.  &  S.  170)  1201 

V  Pugh  (105  Ind.  552)  899 

V  Russell  (27  Grat.  789)  1110 
Pulliam  V.  Bvrd  (2  Strobh.  Eq.  134)  693 
Pullman  v.  Willets  (4  Dem.  536)  1148,  1170 
Pumpellv  V.  Tinkham  (23  Barb.  321)  562 
Purcelly  r.  Carter  (45  Ark.  299)  1015,  1239 
Piirdew  r.  Jackson  (1  Russ.  Ch.  1)  641 
Purdv  V.  Purdy  (3  Md.  Ch.  547)  2-36 
Purnell  v.  Dudley  (4  Jones  Eq.  203)  878 
Purple  V.  Whithed  (49  Vt.  187)  366 
Pursel  V.  Pursel  (14  N.  J.  Eq.  514)  668,  1150, 

1154 

Purvear  v.  Beard  (14  Ala.  121)  494 

\\  Puryear  (5  Baxt.  640)  220 

V.  Reese  (6  Coldw.  21)  37,  42 

Pusey  V.  Clemson  (9  Serg.  &  R.  204)  684, 1163 

Putnam  v.  Osgood  (52  N.  H.  148)  610 

V.  Parker  (55  Me.  235)  294 

V.  Putnam  (X  Pick.  433)  224,  225 

V.  Story  (1.32  Mass.  205)  719 

V.  Young  (57  Tex.  461)  209 

Putnam  Free   School  v.  Fisher  (30  Me. 

523)  718 

Putney  v.  Fletcher  (140  Mass.  596)  1195 

Pvatt'v.  Brockman  (6  Cal.  418)  1251 

PVle's  Appeal  (102  Pa.  St.  317)  941 

P>m  r.  Lockver  (5  Mvl.  &  Cr.  29)  977 

Pyne  v.  WooHand  (2  Ventr.  179)  426 


Quackenboss  v.  Southwick  (41  N.  Y.  117)  536 

Quackenbush  v.  Campbell   (Walk.   Ch. 

525)  852 

V.  Quackenbush  (42  Hun.  329)  1099 

Quain's  Appeal  (22  Pa.  St.  510)  688 

Quarles  v.  Campbell  (72  Ala.  64)      1035,  1038 

r.  Capell  (2  Dver   204  b)  1093 

r.  Garrett  (4  Desaus.  145)  270 

V.  Lacev  (4  Munf.  251)  242 

V.  Quarles  (4  Mass.  680)  1216,  1220 

Queen  v.  Millis  (10  CI.  &  F.  534)  222 

Quick  V.  Ludburmw  (3  Bulst.  29)  686 

V.  Quick  (1  N.  J.  Eq.  4)  1097 

V.  Quick  (3  Sw.  &  Tr.  442)  483 


TABLE   OF   CASES. 


CIX 


Page 
Quick  V.  Staines  (1  Bn«.  &  Pull.  293)  389 
Quicksall  V.  Quicksall  (-2  N.  J.  L.  457)  7U3 
Quidort  v.  Pergeaux  (18  N.  J.  Eq.  472)    5(J5, 

508 
Quigg  V.  Kittredge  (18  N.  H.  137)  804,  803 
Quiglev  V.  Mitchell  (41  Oh.  St.  375)  140 

Quinbv  v.  Frost  (01  Me.  77)  10:j(j 

r.'Manhattaii  Co.  (24  N.  J.  Eq.  200)  002 
Quincy  v.  lingers  (9  Cush.  291)  870,  873,  884 
Quinlan  v.  Fitzpatrick  (25  Ark.  47l)  804 

Quinn's  Succession  (34  La.  An.  87'J)        1054, 

1004 

Quinn  v.  Butler  (L.  R.  6  Eq.  Cas.  225)         90 

V.  Hardenbrook  (54  N.  Y.  83)      883,  890 

V.  Moss  (12  Sm.  &  M.  365)  1012 

V.  Shields  (02  Iowa,  129)  922 

V.  Stockton  (2  Lit.  343)  733,  1213 

Quintard  v.  Mor<;an  (4  Deni.  168)  528 

Quivey  v.  Hall  (19  Cal.  97)  809,  844 


Raab's  Estate  (16  Oh.  St.  273)       1129,  1139, 

118(; 

Rabbitt  v.  Gaither  (67  Md.  94)  248 

Raber  r.  Giuid  (110  111.  581)  195,  211 

Kaborg  v.  Hammond  (2  H.  &  G.  42)  332 

Racouillat  v.  Sansevain  (-32  Cal.  376)  803 

Rader  v.  Yeargin  (85  Tenn.  486)        653,  1140 

Radford  r.  Radford  (5  Dana.  156)  527 

V.  Westcott  (1  Des.  596)  1048 

Raffertv  v.  Mallorv  (3  Biss.  362)  1087 

Ragland  v.  Justices  (10  Ga.  65)  774 

V.  King  (37  Ala.  80)  395 

Ragsdale  v.  Holmes  (1  S.  C.  91)  3-57 

V.  Parrish  (74  Ind.  191)  208 

V.  Stuart  (8  Ark.  268)  1131 

Raiford  V.  Kaiford  (0  Ired.  Eq.  490)  1215 

Railroad  v.  Deal  (90  N.  C.  110)  603 

Railroad  Co.  v.  Knajip  (51  Tex.  592)  217 

Railway  Co.  v.  Richards  (08  Tex.  375)       630 

Raine,  "Goods  of  (1  Sw.  &  Tr.  144)  57 

Raines  v.  Barker  (13  (irat.  128)  890 

Rainey  v.  Biggart  (4  Lea,  50])  1074 

Rains  v.  Haves  (6  Lea,  303)  1218 

Rainsford  v'.  Ta^'nton  (7  Ves.  460)  405 

Raleigh  V.  Rogers  (25  N.  J.  Eq.  506)        1195 

Ralston  ■;;.  Ralston  (3  G.  Green,  533)  230 

V.  Thornton  (36  Ga.  546)  1239 

V.  Wood  (15  111.  159)  800 

Rambler  v.  Trvon  (7  Serg.  &  R.  90)     42,  479, 

490 
Rambo  v.  Bell  (3  Ga.  207)  2.56 

V.  Rumer  (4  Del.  Cli.  9)      989,  1023,  1094 
V.  Wvatt  (32  A  hi.  303)  395 

Ramev  r/Green  (18  Ala.  771)  440 

Ranufes  v.  Kent  (2  Cal.  558)  22 

Rammelsberg  v.  Mitchell  (29  Oh.  St.  22)   292, 

290 

Ramp  V.  McDaniel  (12  Oreg.  108)  531 

Ramsav  v.  Abrams  (58  Iowa,  512)  1223 

17.  Ellis  (3  Des.  78)  1164 

V.  Richardson  (Kilev  Ch.  271)  642 

Ramsdell  v.  Ramsdell  (21  Me.  288)  874 

Ramsden  v.  Jackson  (1  Atk.  292)  792 

Ramsey's  Appeal  (2  Watts,  228)         307,  859 

Appeal  (4  Watts.  71)  770 

Ramsey  v.  Fonts  (67  Ind.  78)  339 

V.  "Ramsey  (4  T.  B.  Mon.  151)  1105 

V.  Welby"'(63  Md.  584)  352 

Ramsour  v.  Thompson  (05  N.  C.  628)        1237 

Rand's  Estate  (61  Cal.  468)  79,  488 


Pa<,'e 
Rand  r.  Hubbard  (4  Met.  Mass  252)         384, 

409,  410 

V.  Hubbell  (115  Mass.  461)  1003 

Randal  v.  Elder  (12  Kan.  257)  200 

Randall  v.  Beatty  (31  N.  J.  I<:q.  643)  100 

V.  Kreiger  (23  Wall.  137)  243 

V.  Marble  (69  Me.  310)  963 

V.  Northwestern  Co.  (54  Wis.  140)       623 

V.  Shrader  (17  Ala.  333)  518 

Randebangh  v.  Shelley  (6  Oh.  St.  307)         70 

Randfield  v.  Randtield  (8  H.  L.  Cas.  225)   885 

Randle  r.  Carter  (62  Ala.  95)  570,  1079 

Randolph's  Appeal  (5  Pa.  St.  242)  1050 

Randolph  r.  Randolph  (40  N.  J.  Eq.  73)    995 

V.  Randolph  (0  Rand.  194)  993 

V.  Ward  (29  Ark.  238)  812 

Rands  V.  Kendall  (15  Oh.  071)  236,  244 

Rank's  Estate  (12  Pliila.  67)  190 

Rank  v.  Camp  (3  Dem.  278)  959 

V.  Rank  (13  Atl.  R.  827)  277 

Ranken  r.  Patton  (65  Mo.  378)  50 

Rankin's  Appeal  (95  Pa.  St.  358)  350 

Rankin  r.  Anderson  (8  Baxt.  240)  1123 

V.  Hannan  (38  Oh.  St.  438)  8-35 

V.  Rankin  (9  Ired.  156)  489 

V.  Rankin  (61  Mo.  295)  46 

Ranking  v.  Barnard  (5  Madd.  32)  1236 

Rannells  v.  (ierner  (80  Mo.  474)  252 

V.  Gerner  (9  Mo.  App.  500)  252 

Ransom,  In  re  (17  Fed.  R.  331)  236 

t>.  Quarles  (16  Ala.  437)  850 

Ransome  v.  Bearden  (50  Tex.  119)  500 

Rapalye  v.  Rapalve  (27  Barb.  010)  1105 

Rapp'y.  Matthias"(35  Ind.  332)  370,  10.35 

Rappelyea  v.  Russell  (1  Daly,  214)  7.59 

Rash  v.  Purnel  (2  Harr.  448)  473 

Ratcliff  V.  Davis  (04  Iowa,  407)  213 

Rattoon  v.  Overacker  (8  John.  120)  412 

Raubitschek  v.  Blank  (80  N.  Y.  478)  834 

Rauchfuss  v.  Rauchfuss  (2  Dem.  271)         882 

Rausch,  In  re  (35  Minn.  291 )  235 

t".  Moore  (48  Iowa,  611)  254 

Raverty  r.  Fridge  (3  McLean.  230)  252 

Rawlin"gs  v.  Adams  (7  Md.  26)  276 

Rawlins  v.  Buttel  (1  Houst.  224)  227 

V.  Rawlins  (2  Cox,  425)  1009 

Rawson  v.  Copland  (3  Barb.  Ch.  166)  828 

V.  Knight  (71  Me.  99)  803 

V.  Pennsvlvama  R.  R.  Co.  (2  Abb. 

P.  R";  N.  s.  220)  611,613 

Ray,  Ex  parte  (20  S.  C.  246)  196 

"■  V.  Doughty  (4  Blackf.  115)     558,  048,  738 

r.  11111(3  Strobh.  L.  297)  52 

V.  Lister  (Andrews,  351)  3-36 

V.  Loper  (05  Mo.  470)      1214,  1218,  1221, 

1223 

V.  Ray  (Coop.  Ch.  Cas.  264)  389 

V.  Rav  (98  N.  C.  566)  480 

V.  Walton  (2  A.  K.  Marsh.  71)  70 

Raymond  v.  Sellick  (10  Conn.  480)  121 

Ra'vnor  v.  Capehart  (2  H.iwks,  375)  271 

■  V.  Lee  (20  Mich  384)  2.54 

V.  Robinson  (36  Barb.  128)  825 

Rea  V.  Englesing  (56  Miss.  463)  525 

V.  McEachfon  (13  Wend.  405)  1059 

V.  Rhodes  (5  Ired.  Eq.  148)  992,  993 

Read's  Case  (5  Co.  34)  415,  420 

Read  v.  Bostick  (0  Humph.  321)  1070 

V.  Hatch  (19  Pick.  47)  625 

V.  Hodgens  (7  Ir.  F:q.  17)  909 

V.  Howe  (13  Iowa,  50)  528 


ex 


TABLE   OF   CASES. 


Read  «.  Howe  (39  Iowa.  553)     329,  1023,  1089 
r.  Watkiiis(ll  Lea,  158)  948 

Reade  v.  Livingston  (3  John.  Ch.  481)         GOi) 
Reading  v.  Wiir  (29  Kan.  429)  730,  1151 

Readv  v.  Stc'iihcnson  (7  J.J.  Marsh.  351)  1272 
V.  'riKinii.son  (4  St.  &  1'.  452)  826 

Reagan  r.  Long  (21  Ind.  204)  424 

r.  Stanley  (11  Lea,  310)  62,488 

Reaves  v.  (larrett  (34  Ala.  558)  2(i9 

Reavis,  Kx  parte  (50  Ala.  210)  187 

Reblum  V.  Mueller  (114  HI.  343)  406 

Reek's  Estate  (Mvr.  59)  11()6 

Record  i\  Howard  (58  Me.  225)  329,  451, 

508,  1089,  1091 
Reetor  v.  Langham  (1  Mo.  568)  307 

Redd  r.  Dure  (40  Ga.  389)  1198 

Redell  v.  Dobell  (10  Sim.  244)  123 

Redford  v.  Peggv  (0  Rand.  316)  488 

Redmond  v.  Burroughs  (f)3  N.  C.  242)  904 

Reed's  Appeal  (118  Pa.  St.  215)  942 

Estate  (82  I'a.  St.  428)  1232 

Will  (2  B.  Mon.  79)  42 

Reed  (7.  Ash  (30  Ark.  775)  254 

V.  Bueklev  (5  Watts  &  S.  517)  941 

c.  Colbv  (89  111.  104)  1025 

V.  Crocker  (12  La.  An.  445)  581 

V.  Cruikshank  (40  Hun.  219)  038 

V.  Diekerman  (12  Pick.  146)  271 

V.  Gilbert  (32  Me.  519)  609 

V.  Hazleton  (37  Kan.  321)  61,  02 

r.  Reed  (3  Head,  491)  277 

V.  Reed  (44  Ind.  42D)  1130 

«;.  Reed  (52N.  Y.051)  1140 

■17.  Reed  (56  Vt.  492)  1241 

V.  Union  Bank  (29  Grat.  719)  212 

V.  Whitney  (7  Gray,  533)  235 

V.  Wilev  (5  Sm.  &"M.  394)  811 

r.  Woodward  (11  Phila.  541)  62 

Reel  r.  Reel  (1  Hawks,  248)  491 

Rees  V.  Morgan  (5  B.  &  Ad.  1035)  792 

Reese's  Apjieal  (110  Pa.  St.  272)  669 

Reese  v.  Hawthorn  (10  Grat.  548)  84 

V.  Probate  Court  (9  R.  I.  434)  95 

Reeves  v.  Brooks  (80  Ala.  26)       255,  257,  275 
V,  Craig  (1  Winst.  209)  953 

V.  Patty  (43  Miss.  338)  1182 

t7.  Petty  (44  Tex.  249)  210 

V.  Reeves  (5  Lea.  653)  946 

V.  Tappen  (21  S.  C.  1)  513,  741 

V.  Ward  (2  Scott,  390)  763 

Refeld  v.  Bellette  (14  Ark.  148)  990 

Reform  Soc.  v.  Case  (3  Dem.  15)       1102, 1103 
Regan  r.  Stone  (7  Sm.  &  M.  104)  811 

Regina  v.  Chad  wick  (11  Ad.  &  Ell.  n.  s. 
2U5)  224 

V.  Stewart  (12  Ad.  &  Ell.  773)  759 

Register  r.  Henslev  (70  Mo.  189)         172,  201 
Reich  V.  Berdel  (120  111.  499)  260 

Reichard's  Appeal  (110  Pa.  St.  2-32)  96 

Reicke  v.  Saunders  (3  Mo.  App.  566)  686 

Reid  V.  Borland  (14  Mass.  208)  96 

V.  Butt  (25  Ga.  28)  672 

i;.  Kellv  (1  Dev.  L.  313)  336 

V.  State  (74  Ind.  252)  300 

Reiff  V.  Horst  (55  Mich.  42)  2.53 

V.  Reiff  (64  Pa.  St.  134)  598 

Reifsnyder  r.  Hunter  (19  Pa.  St.  41)  954 

Reihl  V.  Martin  (29  La.  An.  15)  795 

Reillev  v.  Duffv  (4  Dem.  ■Mid)  1120 

Reinders  v.  Koppelmann  (68  Mo.  482)       140, 

729,  878 


Page 
Reinders  r.  Koppelman  (94  Mo.  338)  871,  873 
Iteinhardt  r.  Evans  (48  Jliss.  230)  834 

r.  (iartrell  (33  Ark.  727)  1133 

r.  Reinhardt  (21  W.  Va.  70)         202,  210 
Reinig  v.  Ilartnian  (69  Wis.  28)  8(il 

Reinstein  v.  Smith  (Ii5  Tex.  247)  689 

Reist  V.  Helll)renner  (II  Serg.  &  R.  131)  020 
Reitz  V.  Bennett  (6  W.  Va.  417)  1138 

Reitzell  v.  Miller  (25  III.  07)  085.  812 

Remick  v.  Butterfield  (31  N.  II.  70)^        1087 
Remington  v.  Amer.  Bible  Soc.  (44  Conn. 
512)  712 

r.  Walker  (21  Hun,  322)  1121 

Renimler  v.  Shenuit  (15  Mo-  App.  192)  676 
Penan  r.  Banks  (83  N.  C.  483)  1271 

Renfrow  t'.  Pearce  (68  111.  125)  284 

Renneberg's  Succession  (15  La.  An.  661)  1033 
Renner  r.  Ross  (111  Ind.  269)  1035 

Renshaw  v.  Stafford  (30  La.  An.  853)  810 
Rentschler  i\  Jamison  (6  Mo.  App.  135)  301 
Reppy  r.  Reppv  (40  Mo.  571)  828 

Resoi-  V.  Resor  (9  Ind.  347)  611 

Reuff  V  Coleman  (30  W.  Va.  175)  951 

Rex  V.  Bettesworth  (2  Str.  1111)  517 

V.  Creel  (22  W.  Va.  373)  1271 

V.  Portington  (1  Salk.  102)  907 

r.  Haines  (1  Ld.  Ravm.  301)  509 

Rexroad  r.  McQuain  (24"W.Va.  32)  1230, 1246 
V.  Wells  (13  W.  Va.  812)  354 

Reynolds,  In  re  (L.  R.  3  Pr.  &  D.  35)        101 
"  Matter  of  (4  Dem.  08)  472 

V.  Adams  (90  111.  i:i4)  490,  491 

V.  Bond  (83  I.id.  30)  1099 

i:  Canal  Co.  (30  Ark.  520)       1142.  1 148. 
1105,  1106 
V.  Kortwright  (18  Beav.  417)  60 

».  Lansford  (10  Tex.  286)  609 

V.  McCurry  (100  111.  356)  254 

V.  McGreg'or  (16  Vt.  191)  854 

V.  McMullen  (55  Mich.  568)  300,  366,  :iU8 
V.  May  (4  Greene,  283)  1205 

r.  Miller  (6  Iowa,  459)  1200 

V.  People  (55  III.  328)  1120 

V.  Reynolds  (1 1  Ala.  1023)  1145 

r.  Re'vnolds  (1  Speers,  253)  52.  08 

V.  Robinson  (82  N.  Y.  103)   892.  976   981 
V.  Rogers  (5  Oh.  169)  552 

V  Root  (02  Barb.  250)  43,  48 

r.  Schmidt  (20  Wis.  374)  3036 

■K.  Wilson  (15  111.  3i)4)  1048.  10.50 

V.  Zink  (27  Grat.  29)  5T0 

Rhame  v.  Lewis  (13  Rich.  Er|    209)  094 

Rhea  v.  Meredith  (6  Lea,  005)  200 

Rhem  v.  Tull  (13  Ired.  57)  652 

Rhett  V.  Cotton  Co.  (84  Ga.  521)  10T3 

V.  Mason  (18  Grat.  541)  1134 

Rhoades  v.  Davis  (51  Mich.  300)  265 

Rhoads's  Appeal  (39  Pa   St.  180 1  1124 

Rhode  Island  Trust  Co.  r.  Bank  (14  R  I. 

025)  949 

Rhodes's  Estate  (11  Phila.  103)  271 

Rhodes  r.  Childs  (04  Pa.  St   18)  120. 121 

r.  Pray  (36  Mimi.  392)  835 

V.  Rhodes  (137  Mass.  343)  878 

V.  Sevmour  (36  Conn.  1)  7'J5 

V.  Vinson  (9  Gill,  109)  89,  484 

Rhorer  v.  Brockhage  (86  Mo.  544)     200.  202. 

208 

V.  Brockhage  (13  Mo.  App  397)  202,  208 

Rhymer's  Appeal  (93  Pa.  St    142)  911 

Ricard  v.  Smith  (37  Miss.  644 1  1200 


TABLE   OF   CASES. 


CXI 


Ricard  r.  Williams  (7  Wheat.  59)  1025 

Kieaud's  Estate  (57  Cal.  4'2J)  VIM 

Estate  (70  Cal.  G'J)  3  Hiti 

Rice's  Estate  (Mvr.  183)  ^'M 

Succession  (U  La.  An.  317)        700,  1104 
Rice  V.  Boston  I'ost  (56  N.  H.  lUl)      'J70,  971 
V-  Cannon  (r>ai.  Eq.  172)  774 

V.  Harbeson  (0;5  N.  Y.  49.0  11*»7 

V.  llarbcson  (2  Th.  &  C.  4)  1112 

r.  Jones  (4  Call.  89)  495 

V.  MiMartui  (39  Conn.  573)  289 

V.  M(  Reynolds  (8  Lea,  3G)  tj39,  041,  1014 
V.  Nelson  (27  Iowa,  148)  274 

V.  Rice  (50  Mich.  488)  38,  41 

V.  Rice  (53  Mich.  432)  31,  34 

V.  Satterwlute  (1  D   &  B.  Eq.  09)         915 
V.  Smith  (14  Mass,  431)  1153,  1245 

V.  Thompson  (14  B.  Mon.  377)  042 

Rich,  Matter  of  (3  Redf.  177)  1181 

V  Bowker  (25  Kan.  7)  30 

V.  Cockell  (9  Ves.  .308)  20 

V.  Eldiedi^e  (42  N.  H.  246)  854 

»■  Gilkev'(73  Me.  595)  89 

V.  Rich  (7  Bush,  53)  202 

V.  Tubbs  (41  Cal.  34)  198,  215 

Richards  v.  Adamsou  (43  Iowa,  2)8)  1055 

V.  Browne  (3  Binjj.  N.  Cas.  493)  991 

r.  Dutch  (8  Mass.  500)  375 

V.  Humphreys  (15  Pick.  133)  973,  977,980 
V.  'SUUer  (62  III.  417)  494,  902,  903 

V.  :Moore  (5  Redf.  278)  504 

V.  Richards  (11  Humph.  429)  1217 

Richardson,    Ex    parte    (Buck's  Cas.    in 
Bankr.  202)  282 

i:  Hall  (124  Mass.  228)  988 

«.  Harrison  (30  Mo.  90)  .     840,847 

V.  Hildreth  (8  Cush.  225)  731 

V.  Horton  (7  Beay.  112)  059 

V.  Judah  (2  Bradf.  157)  1032 

V.  Keel  (9  Lea,  74)  1237.  12:!8 

».  Lewis  (21  Mo.  App.  531)  184 

V.  McLemore  (GO  Miss.  315)  711 

V.  Martin  (55  N    H.  45)  902 

V.  Merrill  (32  Vt.  27)  164,  611,  660 

V.  New  York  Central  R.  R.  Co.  (98 

Mass   85)  630 

V.  Pai£?e  (.54  Vt.  373)  949 

V.  Palmer  (24  Mo.  App.  480)  757 

I'.  Ranj,diley  (1  Houst.  501)  8r)6 

.       V.  Richardson  (75  Me.  574)  1004 

•       ».  Richardson  (9  Pa.  St.  428)  1132 

r.  Richardson  (35  Vt.  238)  70 

r.  Stansbury  (4  Har.  &  .J.  275)  1170 

V.  Wheatland  (7  Met.  169)  942 

f.  Wyatt  (2Des.  471)  289 

r.  Wymau  (62  Me.  280)  240 

Richmond's  Succession  (35  La.  An.  858)    810 

Riciimoiid  v.  Foote  (3  Lans.  244)      330,  1030, 

1089 
Richter  e.  Poppenliusen  (39  How.  Pr.  82)  285 
Richwine  v.  Heim  (1  Pa.  Rep.  373)  040 

Rick  V.  Gilson  (1  Pa.  St.  54)  734 

Rickards  v.  Hutchinson  (18  Nev.  215)         800 
Rickeubacker  v.  Zimniermann  (10  S.  C. 

110)  1214,1219,1221,1222 

Ricketson  v.  Richardson  (19  Cal.  330)         807 
Ricketts  V.  Hicketts  (4  Lea,  103)  7".t5 

Ricks  V   Ililliard  (45  Miss.  359)  433,  1240 

Riddle's  Estate  (19  Pa.  St.  431)        1219,  1222 
Riddle  V.  Mandeville  (5  Cr.  .322)  1271 

V.  Murphv  (7  S.  &  R.  230)  1088 


Pnpe 
Riddle  r.  Roll  (24  Oh.  St.  572)  1087 

RideiibauHh  v.  Bunies  (14  Fed.  R.  93)      1131, 

1132 

RidL^'ly  V.  Bennett  (13  Lea,  210)    1031,  1032, 

'     '  1034,  1090 

V.  Bond  (18  Md.  4:]2)  883 

Ridfjeway  v.  Underwood  (67  111.  419)  728,  889 

Ridgway  v.  Darwin  (8  Ves.  05)  32 

t:  lilcAlpine  (31  Ala.  458)  273 

V.  Manifold  (39  Lid.  58)  1016 

V.  Masting  (23  Oh.  St.  294)  237 

Ridley  r.  Coleman  (1  Sliced,  616)  81 

Rife  V.  Geyer  (.59  Pa.  St.  393)  956 

Rigden  r.'Vallier  (2  Ves.  Sr.  252)  125 

Riggs  V.  Cragg  (26  Hun,  89)  1004 

V.  Cragg" (89  N.  Y.  479)       323,  352,  1249 

V.  Myers  (20  IMo.  239)  893 

V.  Riggs  (135  Mass.  238)  08 

V.  Sterling  (51  Mich.  157)  216 

Right  V.  Price  (1  Dougl.  241)  67 

Riley  v.  Albany  Bank  (30  Hun,  513')  687 

'v.  Kepler  (94  Iiid.  308)  1050,  1077 

V.  McCord  (24  Mo.  205)  508 

V.  jMo>elev  (44  Miss.  37)  359 

V.  Norman  (39  Ark.  158)  1132 

r.  Riley  (25  Conn.  154)  607,608 

V.  Smith  (5  S.  W.  R.  809) 

Rinard  v.  West  (92  Ind.  359)  1204,  1205 

Riudge  V.  Oliphint  (02  Tex.  682)  1003 

Hinehart  v.  Rinehart  (15  N.  J.  Eq   44)        739 

V.  Rinehart  (27  N.  J.  Eq.  475)  530 

Ringgold  V.  Malott  (1  H.  &  J.  299)  304 

'V'.  Stone  (20  Ark.  520)  1132,  1137 

Ringhouse  v.  Keeyer  (49  III.  470)        445,  440 

Riiitch  V.  Cunningham  (4  Bibb,  462)  259 

Ripley  V.  Sampson  (10  Pick.  371)  691 

Riser's.  Snoddy  (7  lud.  442)  1033 

Risk's  Appeal  (110  l'=>-  St-  1"1)  '^^^^ 

Ritch  V.  Bellamy  (14  Fla.  537)  340,  356 

V.  Morns  (78  N.  C.  377)  999 

Ritchey  V.  W^ithers  (72  Mo.  556)  177,  180, 191, 

192,  1125 
Ritchie  V.  McAuslin  (1  Hayw.  220)  405,  532 
Ritteiihouse  v.  Levering  (0  Watts  &  S. 

190)  1153 

Ritter's  Appeal  (23  Pa.  St.  95)  843,  11.56 

Estate  (11  Phila.  12)  1189 

Rivenett  v.  Bonrquin  (53  Mich.  10)  930 

Rivers  v.  Rivers  (3  Desaus.  190)  58,  204 

Rix  V.  Nevins  (20  Vt.  384)  G:.8 

V.  Smith  (8  Vt   305)  1159 

Rizer's  Estate  (15  Phila.  .547)  190 

Rizer  V.  Perrv  (58  Md.  112)        728,  928,  943, 

944,  946 
Roach  V.  Ames  (80  Kv.  6)  087 

Roanoke  Nav.  Co.  i:  Green  (3  Dev  434)   513, 

741,743 

Ro  Bards  v.  Lamb  (76  Mo.  192)  1 196 

V.  Lamb  (89  Mo.  303)  401,  1183 

Robards  v.  Wortham  (2  Dev.  Eq   123)    1094, 

1105 

Robb's  Appeal  (41  Pa.  St.  45)  1103 

Robb  r.  Belt  (12  B.  Mon.  043)  882 

V.  Irwin  (15  Oh.  089)  10-30,  1034 

V.  Mann  (11  Pa.  St.  300)  1067 

Robbin's  Case  (Nov,  09)  415 

Robbiiis  V.  Bates  (4  Gush.  104)  1080 

r.  Brewer  (48  Me.  481)  8.54 

V.  Gleason  (47  Me.  2.59)  951 

V.  Robbins  (8  Blackf.  174)  2-39 

V.  Mobbins  (1  S.  W.  R.  152)       1147,  1149 


cxu 


TABLE   OP   CASES. 


Paso 

Robbins  r'.  Tafft  (12  R.  I.  07)  ;i-K) 

V.  Wakott  (27  Conn.  2;J4)  1147,  1188 

Robert  1'.  Hn.wn  (U  La.  An.  597)  til).j 

V.  West  (15  Ga.  122)  607,  878 

Roberts's  Appeal  (92  I'a.  St.  407)  liaS,  1202 
Estate  (07  Cal.  349)  192 

Roberts,  Matter  of  (3  John.  Ch   42)  1173 

V.  Briscoe  (44  Oh.  St.  590)  835 

V.  Uurton  (27  Vt.  390)  857 

V.  Colvm  (3  Grat.  358)  652 

V.  Dale  (7  B.  Mon.  199)  1228,  1231 

V.  Elliott  (3  T.  B.  Mon.  305)  887 

V.  Flanagan  (21  Neb.  503)  4l)8 

IJ.  Johns  (10  S.  C.  171)  1127 

V.  Lisenbee  (80  N.  C.  136)  629 

V.  Loni;lev  (41  Tex.  4.54)  507 

V.  Mar'tiii"(70  Ga.  196)  1089 

17.  Moselv(51  Mo.  282)  608 

V.  Ogbourne  (37  Ala.  174)  902 

V.  Phillips  (4  El.  &  Bl.  450)  69 

V.  Polgrean  (1  H.  Bl.  535)  594,  595 

V.  Roberts  (2  Lee,  399)  1115 

V.  Roberts  (34  Miss.  322)  1127 

V.  Roberts  (05  N.  C.  27)  1057,  1083 

1-.  Spencer  (112  Ind.  81)  1127 

V.  Sfjencer  (112  Ind.  85)  840,  1121 

V.  'i'homas  (32  Ga.  31)  738 

V.  Trawick  (13  Ala.  68)  490 

V.  Ware  (80  Mo.  303)  208 

V.  Watson  (4  Jones  L.  319)  871 

V.  Welch  (40  Vt.  164)  70 

Robertson  v.  Barbour  (0  T.  B.  Mon.  523)  494 
V.  Bradford  (73  Ala.  116)  1080 

V.  Gaines  (2  Hnmph.  307)  411,  512,  718 
V.  Johnston  (24  Ga.  102)  872,  881 

V.  McGeoch  (11  Pai.  640)  512,  513 

r.  Paul  (16  Tex.  472)  210 

V.  Pickrell  (109  U.  S.  608)     407,  481,  496 

Robie's  Estate  (Mvr.  220)  532 

Robie  V.  Flanders "(33  N.  H.  524)        255,  274 

Robins  v.  Arnold  (42  N.  J.  Eq.  511)  805 

V.  McClure  (100  N.  Y.  .32.^)  518,  642 

Robinson's  Appeal  (62  Pa.  St.  213)  1049, 1069 
Case  (2  South.  L.  R.  n.  s.  598)  446 

Estate  (6  Mich.  137)  1120 

Estate  (12  Phil.  14)  401 

Estate  (12  Phil.  170)  344,-348 

Robin.son,  Appellant  (1  D.  Chip.  357)  1234 
V.  Adams  (62  Me.  369)  37,  478,  490 

V.  Allison  (74  Ala.  254)  723 

V.  Baker  (47  Mich.  619)  203 

V.  Bank  of  Darien  (18  Ga.  65)  773 

V.  Bates  (3  Met.  Mass.  40)  246 

V.  Clark  (76  Me   493)  609 

V.  Crandall  (9  Wend.  425)  367 

V.  Fair  (9  Sup.  Ct.  R.  30)  1243 

V.  Gallier  (2  South.  L.  Rev  594)  935 

V.  Gholson  (8  Sni.  &  M.  392)  1197 

V.  Glancv  (69  Pa.  St.  89)  1049 

f.  Greene  (14  R.  I.  181)  878,950 

V.  Hodge  (117  Mass.  222)  866 

V.  Hutclnnson  (26  Vt.  38)  37 

V.  Lakenan  (28  Mo.  App.  135)  276 

V.  Lowater  (17  Beav.  592)  716 

V.  JIcAfee  (59  Mich.  375)  823 

V.  Mclver  (63  N.  C.  645)  989, 1104 

V.  Millard  (133  Ma.ss.  236)  560 

V.  Randolph  (21  Fla.  629)  955,  957 

V.  Raynor  (28  N.  Y.  494)  1208 

V.  Robinson  (3  Harr.  433)  774 

V.  Schly  (6  Ga.  515)  .       61 


Pa^e 
Robinson  v.  Simmons  (15  N.  East.  558)    285, 

434 
V.  Ware  (94  Mo.  678)  274 

Robison  v.  Codnian  (1  Sumn.  121)  276 

Robnett  v.  Ashlock  (49  Mo.  171)  55 

Robson  V.  Robson  (3  Del.  Ch.  51)  120 

Robxns  V.  Corvell  (27  Barb.  55())  66 

Rochelle  V.  HaVrison  (8  Port.  351)  6-32,  1070 
Rochereau  r.  Maignan  (32  La.  An.  45)  1232 
Rochester,  Re  City  of  (46  linn,  051)        1095, 

1096 

Rochon,  In  re  (15  La.  An.  0)  1199 

Rock  V.  Haas  (110  111.  528)   181,  182,  204,  205 

».  Leighton  (1  Salk.  310)  769 

Rocke  V.  Hart  (11  Ves.  .'';8)  1139 

V.  Rocke  (9  Beav.  0(i)  995 

Rock  Hill  College  v.  Jones  (47  Md.  1)        308 

Rockhold  V.  Blevius  (0  Baxt.  115)  700 

Rockport  V.  Walden  (54  N.  H.  167)  841 

Rockwell's  Appeal  (54  Conn.  119)  47 

Rockwell  V.  Young  (60  Md.  563)         426,  427 

Rockwood  V.  Wigiiin  (16  Grav,  402)    116,  124 

Rodenbach's  Appeal  (102  Pa." St.  572)       1140 

Roderigas  v.  East  River  Sav.    Inst.   (63 

N.  Y.  460)  453,  454,  456,  459 

».  East  River   Sav.  Inst.  (76  N.  Y. 
316)  4.54,  4.56,  562 

Rodman  v.  Rodman  (54  Ind.  444)       599,  665, 

1142 

r.  Smith  (2  N.  J.  L.  2)  147 

Roe  r.  Tavlor  (45   111.  485)  41.  48 

Roehl  V.  Pleasants  (31  Tex.  45)  1043 

Roethlesberger  v.  Caspari  (12  Mo.  App. 

514)  826 

Roff  V.  Johnson  (40  Ga.  5.55)        195,  199,  215 

lioffinac's  Succession  (21  La.  An.  304)        359 

Rogers,  Appellant  (11  Me.  303)  57,  58 

Ex  parte  (03  N.  C.  110)  190 

V.  Bumpass  (4  Ired.  Eq.  385)  639 

V.  Chandler  (3  Munf.  65)  1116 

V.  Diamond  (13  Ark.  474)  36,  47,  67, 

69,  70 
V.  Divelv  (51  Mo.  193)  402,  5-39 

V.  Fales"(5  Pa.  St.  154)  611 

V.  Farrar  (6  T.  B.  Mon.  421)  1262 

V.  French  (19  G;i.  316)  980 

V.  Hand  (39  N.  J.  Eq.  270)  1165 

V.  Hoberlein(ll  Cal.  120)  396 

17   Hosack  (18Wend.  319)  646 

V.  Law  (1  Black,  253)  960 

V.  Ludlow  (3  Sandf.  Ch.  104)  609 

V.  Marsh  (73  Mo.  64)  210,  214,  215 

V.  Martin  (47  Conn.  248)  1196 

V.  Maves  (84  Mo.  520)  208 

V.  Mitchell  (1  Met.  Kv.  22)  803 

V.  Moor  (1  Root,  472)"  740 

V.  Morrison  (21  La.  An.  455)  576 

V.  Pittis  (1  Add.  30)  86 

V.  Ragland  (42  Tex.  422)  199 

V.  Renshaw  (37  Tex.  625)  212 

V.  Rogers  (67  Me.  450)  854 

V.  Rogers  (3  Wend.  503)  702 

V.  Ross  (4  John.  Ch.  608)  355 

V.  Traphagan  (42  N.  J.  Eq.  421)       1012, 

1232 
V.  Trevathan  (67  Tex.  406)  1016 

V.  Weller  (5  Biss.  166)  157 

V.  Wilson  (13  Ark.  507)  329,  1030 

V.  Winton  (2  Humph.  178)  472 

V.  Zook  (86  Ind.  237)  387,  693 

Rogerson,  Goods  of  (2  Curt.  656)  531 


TABLE  OF   CASES. 


CXIU 


Rolain  r.  Darbv  (1  McC.  Ch.  72)  774 

Knlaiid  i:  MilK"r  (100  I'a.  St.  47)  72," 

Holfsoii  V.  (Salmon  (:{  Utah.  2.-i-2)  11.J2 

Kolliii  V.  WluppL-i-  (17  S.  ('.  ■■i-2)  5;51 

Rollins  V.  Kice  (5!)  N.  H.  4U.!)  102:i 

Koilwagon  v.  Koll wagon  (-J  Ilim,  121)        i'J'J 
Konialne  v.   liendrickson   (24  N.  J.  Eq. 

2;il)  715 

Romero's  Estate  (17  Pac.  R.  434)  209 

Estate  (38  La.  An.  047)  810 

Romii^o's  Appeal  (84  I'a.  St.  2-35)  1187 

Rona'iv  Meier  (47  Iowa,  (!07)  1*48 

Roney  v.  Stiltz  (.5  Wliart.  381)  81)0 

Roonie  v.  Phillips  (24  x\.  Y.  4G3)  881 

Rooney,  In  re  (3  Redf.  15)  7(14 

Roorbach  ».  Lord  (4  Conn.  347)  431 

Roosevelt  v.  Fulton  (7  Cow.  71)  057,  882 

V.  Thurman  (1  John.  Ch.  220)  955 

Root,  In  re  (1  Kedf.  257)  533 

v.  Tavlor  (20  John.  137)  828 

Roper  f.  Roper  (L.  R.  3  Ch.  D.  714)  98  i 

Rose's  p:state  (63  Cal.  346)      1047,  1090,  1187 

liose  V.  Clark  (8  Pai.  574)  1239 

V.  Dravton  (4  Rich.  Eq.  2G0)  86 

u  Guiin  (79  Ala.  411)  286,287 

V.  Himelev  (4  Cr.  241)  452 

V.  Lewis  (3  Lans.  320)  1260 

V.  Newman  (26  Tex.  131)  695 

t).  Porter  (141  Mass.  309)  877 

V.  Quick  (30  Pa.  St.  225)  61 

V.  Rose  (4  Abb.  App.  Dec.  108)  920 

V.  Sanderson  (38  III   247)  277 

r.  Winn  (51  Tex.  545)  5.52 

Rose  boom  v.  Roseboom  (81  N.  Y.  356)        957 

Rosenberg  v.  Frank  (58  Cal.  387)  3.52 

Rosenthal  «.  Enevoldsen  (61  Miss.  532)      839 

V.  Mavhugh  (-33  Oh  St.  155)  263 

r.  Prussing  (108  III.  128)  400 

V.  Renick  (44  111.  202)  361,  378,  442, 

676.  1025 

Roskelley  v.  Godolphin  (T.  Raym.  483)    787, 

788 
Ross,  Matter  of,  87  N.  Y.  514)  42 

v.  Barclay  (18  Pa.  St.  179)  720 

r.  Diincaii  (Freem.  Ch.  ,587)  19 

V.  Henderson  (77  N.  C.  170)  28 J 

V.  Hine  (48  Ark.  304)  81)8 

V.  Julian  (70  Mo.  209)  340,  1073 

V.  Mines  (7  Sm.  &  M.  121)  547 

V.  Murpliv  (55  Mo.  372)  1192 

V.  Ross  (12  B.  Mon.  437)  830 

V.  Ross  (129  Mass.  243)  141,  157 

V.  Wharton  (10  Yerg.  190)  789 

Rotch  V.  Emerson  (105  Mass.  431)  873, 

884,  1005 
Roth's  Succession  (31  La.  An.  315)  72,  79 
Rothmaler  v.  Mvers  (4  Des.  215)  953 

Rothscliild  V.  Itowe  (44  Vt.  389)  610 

Rottenberry  v.  Pipes  (53  Ala.  447)     215,  216, 

1077 

Rottmann  v.  Schmncker  (94  Mo.  139)  330,  333 

Woulston  V.  Washington  (79  Ala.  529)         297 

Roundtree  v.  Sawver  (4  Dev.  44)  798 

V.  Dennard  (59  Ga.  629)  208 

V.  Talbot  (89  111.  246)  8:)8 

Rouse  V.  Morris  (17  S.  &  R.  328)  765 

Rowan  v.  Kirkpatrick  (14  111.  1)  1182 

Rowand  r.  Carroll  (81  111.  224)  1047 

Rowe  V.  Hamilton  3  Me.  63)  265 

r.  White  (16  N.  J.  Eq   411)  994 

Rowell  V.  Patterson  (70  Me.  196)  846 

VOL.    I.  —  /( 


Pa-re 

Rowland,  In  re  (5  Dem.  216)  1188 

V.  Rowland  (2  Sneed,  543)  245 

Rowlev  V.  Fair  (104  lud.  189)  655 

f.^Strav  (32  Mich.  70)  154 

Rowton  V.  kowton  (1  Ile.i.  &  M.  91)  236 

Rov  V.  R(jwzie  (25  Grat.  .599)  894 

■  V.  Rov  (16  Grat.  418)  65 

V.  Segrist  (19  Ala.  810)  497 

Rovce  V.  Burrell  (12  .Mass.  407)  522 

Rover's  Apjjeal  (13  I'a.  St.  569)  1149 

RoVs  V.  Vilas  (18  Wis.  169)  283,  290 

llovston  V.  Rovston  (21  (ia.  161)  244 

Kozelle  V.  Harmon  (29  Mo.  App.  569)  414,429 

Ro/.ier  v.  Fagan  (46  III.  4i)4)  1036,  1038 

i;ul)l)er  Co.  V.  Goodyear  (6  Wall.  153)       1196 

Kul.cck  V.  Gardner  (7  Watts.  455)   22,  306.  310 

Kubdttom  V.  Morrow  (24  Ind.  202)     691,  1151 

Ruch  V.  Biery  (110  Ind.  444)   1195,  1201, 1214, 

1217,  1219.  1223 

Rucker  v.  Dyer  (44  Miss.  591)  1045 

V.  Lambdin  (12  Sm.  &  M.  2-30)         72,  76 

Rucks  V.  Tavlor  (49  Miss.  502)  366 

Rudd  r.  Rudd  (4  Dem.  335)  346 

Ruddon  v.  McDonald  (1  Hradf.  352)  67 

Rudisell  V.  Rodes  (29  Grat.  147)  100,  101 

V.  Watson  (2  Dev.  Eq.  430)  607 

Rudy  V.  Ulrich  (09  Pa.  St.  177)  48,  101) 

Ruff  V.  Doyle  (.56  Mo.  .301)  682 

('.  Smith  (31  Miss.  .59)  7.52 

Ruffin  V.  Harrison  (81  N.  C.  298)  551 

V.  Harrison  (86  N.  C.  190)  551,  1252 

Rugg  V.  Rugg  (83  N.  Y.  592)  71,  475 

Rugle  V.  Web><ter  (55  Mo   246)  10.58 

Rule  V.  Maupin  (84  Mo.  587)  490 

Rumph  V.  Truelove  (66  (ia.  480)  1023 

Rumrill  v.  First  National  Bank  (28  Jlinn. 

202)  583 

Rundle  v.  Pegram  (49  Miss.  751)  223 

Runkle  v.  Gates  (11  Ind.  95)  89,  90 

Runnels  v.  Runnels  (27  Tex.  515)        212,  215 

Runyan's  Appeal  (27  Pa.  St.  121)  177 

Runvan  v.  Newark  Co.  (24  N.  J.  L.  467)  1048 

\\  Price  (15  Oh.  St.  1)  42 

Runvon's  Estate  (53  Cal.  196)  1125 

Ruoff's  Appeal  (26  Pa.  St.  219)  63 

Rush  V.  Megee  (30  Ind.  69)  39 

V.  Rush  (40  Ind.  83)  9-52 

V.  Vought  (55  Pa.  St.  437)  611 

Rasing  v.  Rusing  (25  Ind.  63)  902 

Rusling  V.  Rusling  (36  N.  J.  Eq.  603)         490 

Russ  V.  Russ  (9  Fla   105)  949 

Russell,  In  re  (33  Hun,  271)  482 

V.  Allen  (107  U.  S.  103)  929 

V.  Clowes  (2  Coll.  648)  98 

V  Erwin  (41  Ala.  292)     395,  396,  022,  714 

V.  Eubanks  (84  Mo.  82)  949 

V.  Hartt  (87  N.  Y.  19)  481,  534 

V.  Hoar  (3  Met.  Mass.  187)  635,  537 

V.  Hubbard  (59  111.  335)  807,  849 

V.  Lane  (1  Barb.  519)  807,  808 

V.  Lewis  (3  Or.  380)  323 

V.  McDougall  (3  Sm.  &  M.  234)  330 

V.  Madden  (95  111  485)  360 

V.  Sunburv  (37  Oh.  St.  372)  627,  628 

V.  United  States  (15  Ct.  of  CI.  108)       336 

Rust  V.  Billingslea  (44  Ga.  306)  780 

V.  Witherington  (17  Ark.  129)  428 

Rustling  V.  Rustling  (47  N.  J.  L.  1)  795 

Ruston  V.  Ruston  (2  Y'eates,  54)  1106 

Ruth  V.  Oberbrunner  (40  Wis.  238)    928,  932, 

1230 


CXIV 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


Rutherford  v.  Clark  (4  Biisli,  27) 
V.  Crawford  (b'-i  Ga.  i;i8) 
V.  Mavo  (7ti  Va.  117) 
v.  Morris  (77  111.3117) 
V.  I'ope  (15  aid.  579) 
V.  Thompson  (14  Or.  286) 
V.  Williams  (G2  Mo.  252) 

Rutledg-e,  Ex  parte  (Harp.  Cii.  (i5) 
V.  McFarland  (75  Ga.  774) 

Rvan  V.  Allen  (120  III.  048) 
'    V.  Andrews  (21  Mich.  229) 
V.  Flanagan  (-id,  N.J.  L.  IGl) 
V.  McLeod  (.32  Grat.  307) 
V.  Rvan  (2  Phillim.  332) 
V.  Texas  &  Fac.  R.  R.  (64  Tex. 

Rvden  v.  Jones  (1  Hnwks,  497) 
Hvder  v.  Wilson  (41  N.  J.  Eq.  9) 
Ryerson,  In  re  (20  N.  J.  Eq.  43) 
r.  Hendrie  (22  Iowa,  480) 


Pace 

362,  456 

331 

271 

39,  43,  46 

337 

429 

676,  805 

0:!8 

195 

902.  1102 

154 

804 

120G 

520 

464, 

465,  460 

702 

840 

1000 

287 


239) 


Saam  e.  Saam  (4  W^atts,  432) 
Sabalot  i\  Populus  (31  La.  An.  854) 
Sacia  i".  Berthoud  (17  Barb.  15) 
Sacket  v.  Mead  (1  Conn.  13) 
Sackville  V.  Smith  (L.  R.  17  Eq.  153) 
Saddington  v.  Hewitt  (70  Wis.  24(1) 
Saddler  r.  Kennedy  (26  W.  Va.  636) 
Sadler  v.  Sadler  (16  Ark.  628) 
Saeger  v.  Wilson  (4  W.  &  S.  .501)       684, 
Saffordi).  Houghton  (48  Vt.  2-36) 
Sage  V.  Woodin  (66  N.  Y.  578) 
SaL'er  v.  Galloway  (113  Pa.  St.  500) 
Salder  r.  Signer  (44  Barb   606) 
Sale  V.  Dishman  (3  Leigh,  548) 

r.  Thornsl>errv  (5  S.  W.  R.  468) 
Salisbury  v.  Aldrich  (118  111.  199) 

r.  Morse  (7  Lans.  359) 
Sallee  v.  Waters  (17  Ala.  482) 
Salmon  ?•.  Hays  (4  Hagg.  382) 
Salsbury  r.  Ellison  (7  Col.  167) 
Salter  r.  Bhumt  (2  Dev.  &  B.  Eq.  2U 

V-  Cain  (7  Ala.  478) 

V.  Neaville  (1  Bradf  488) 

V.  Salter  (6  Bush,  624) 

V.  Salter  (98  Ind.  -522) 

V.  Williamson  (2  N.  J.  Eq.  481) 
Saltmarsh  v.  Boene  (4  Port.  283) 

V.  Smth  (.32  Ala  404) 
Saltonstall  v.  Sanders  (11  Allen,  446) 

926,  933,  9.34 
Sammis  v.  Sammis  (14  R.  I.  123)       942,  950, 

11(12 
Sample  v.  Barr  (25  Pa  St.  457)        1030 
Sampson  r.  Browning  (22  Ga.  293) 

V.  Bryce  (5  Munf.  175) 

V.  Graham  (96  Pa.  St.  405) 

V.  Randall-(72  Me.  109) 

V.  Sampson  (03  Me.  328) 
Samson  v.  Samson  (64  Cal.  327) 
Samuel  v.  Thomas  (51  WMs.  549) 
Saniwell  v.  Wake  (1  Bro.  Ch.  144) 
Sanborn  v.  Goodhue  (28  N.  H..48) 


424 
214 
693 

P.57 

nil 

080 

1029 
508 
702 
157 
200 
942 

1043 

287 

877 

34 

1103 

182 

03 

280 

1247 
744 
777 
774 
433 

1123 
702 
255 

922, 


Pn?e 
Sanders  v.  -Tones  (8  Ired.  Eq.  246)       35?',  303 

V.  I.ov  (01  Ind.  298)  1182,  1254 

V.  Saliders  (2  Dev.  Kq.  202)  1039 

V.  Sinni.h  (00  Cal.  1.5(1)  109 

Sanderson's  Estate  (74  Cal.  199)  677,738,1186 
Sanderson  v.  Bavlev  (4  Mvl.  &  Cr.  56)       899 

V.  Pearson  (45  Md.  483)  1175 

V.  Sanderson  (17  Fla.  820)  821,  822,  1123, 

1228 

V.  Sanderson  (20  Fla.  292)        1135,  1146, 
1165,  1108 

V.  White  (18  Pick.  328)  919,  92-3,  929 
Sandford  v.  McLean  (3  i  ai.  117)  244,  251 
Sandoe's  Appeal  (65  Pa.  St.  314)  273 

Sands's  Case  (3  Salk.  22) 

Case  (Sid.  179) 
Sands  r.  Lynliam  (27  Grat.  201) 
Sanford  r.Atwood  (44  Conn.  141) 

r.  Head  (5  Cal.  297) 

V.  Sanford  (61  Barb.  293) 

V.  Sanford  (5  Lans.  480) 
Sansrston  v.  Hack  (52  Md.  173) 
Sankev's  Appeal  (55  Pa.  St.  491)    1051 


103(! 

81 

993 

603 

1000 

1267 

499,  501 

760,  702 

1094 

118,  126, 

679 

Sanchez  v.  Hart  (17  Fla.  .507)      622,  712,  713 
Sanderlin  v.  Sanderlin  (1  Swan,  441)  167, 1 81 , 

182 

Sanders.  In  re  (4  Pai.  293)  950 

r.  HIain  (0  ,1   J.  Marsh.  440)  734 

V.  Edwards  (29  La.  An.  096)  549 


516,  574 

510,  574 

306 

611 

11-30 

612 

612 

284 

1059, 

1060 

1242 

1231 

12-31 

537 

526,  533 

11-38 

531 

818 

250 

638,  995 

505,  518 


Sankev  v.  Elsberr\'  (10  Ala.  455) 

t?."Sankey  (6  Ala.  607)  12-30 

V.  SankeV  (8  Ala.  601) 
San  Roman  r.  Watson  (54  Tex.  254) 
Sargent's  Estate  (62  Wis.  130) 
Sargent  v.  Davis  (3  La.  An.  353) 

V.  Fox  (2  McCord,  -309) 

V.  Kimball  (37  Vt.  320) 

V.  Roberts  (34  Me.  135) 

r.  Sargent  (103  Mass.  297) 
Sarkie's  Appeal  (2  Pa.  St.  157) 
Sarle  v.  Court  of  Probate  (7  R.  I.  270)      40 1 . 

1205 
Sarrazin's  Succession  (34  La.  An.  1168)  522 
Sartor  v.  Beatv  (25  S.  C.  293)  12-37,  1238 

Sartoris,  In  re'(l  Curt.  910)  404 

Sarver  v.  Beal  (36  Kan.  555)  131 

Sasscer  v.  Walker  (5  G.  &  J.  102)  647 

Satcher  v.  Satcher  (41  Ala.  20)  329 

Satterfield  v.  Maves  (11  Humph.  .58)  896 

Satterthwaitei'.Satterthwaite(  3  Phillim.  1)471 
Satterwhite  i'.  Carson  (3  Ired.  L.  549)  401 

Littlefield  (13  Sm.  &  M.  302)  341, 1108 


Saner  r.  Grittin  (67  ^lo.  654) 
Saunders's  Appeal  (54  Conn.  108) 
Saunders  v.  Bell  (56  Ga.  442) 

V.  Deuison  (20  Conn.  521) 

V.  Ferrill  (1  Ired.  L.  97) 

r.  Haughton  (8  Ired.  Eq.  217) 

V.  Rudd  (21  Ark.  519) 

V.  Saunders  (2  Lit.  314) 

V.  Weston  (74  Me.  85) 

V.  Wilder  (2  Head,  .577) 
Saunderson  v.  Stearns  (6  Mass.  37) 
Sauter  v.  MuUer  (4  Dem.  -389) 
Savage  v.  Benham  (17  Ala.  119) 

V.  Gould  (60  How.  Pr.  217) 

r.  O'Neil  (44  N.  Y.298) 
Savings  Society  v.  Hutchinson  (68  Cal 

52) 
Sawbridge  v.  Hill  (L.  R.  2  P.  &  D.  219) 
Sawtelle's  Appeal  (84  Pa.  St.  300) 
Sawver  v.  Baldwin  (20  Pick.  -378)        355,  882 

v.  ConcoFd  R.  R.  Co.  (58  N.  H.  517)  617, 

620 

r   Dozier  (5  Ired  97)  511 

V   Sawyer  (7  Jones  L.  134)         71 


1202 

48 

1064 

1194 

610 

1001 

803,  808 

■87.  1123 

361,  6.50 

287 

383 

950 

3-57 

11-35 

613 


845 
529 
816 


TABLE   OF    CASES. 


CXV 


P,a;.'p 


Sawyer  v.  Sawyer  (28  Vt.  245)    103,  Ififi,  180, 
182, 181t,  7(iS 
Sawvers  v.  Baker  (77  Ala.  461)  til 2 

Saxon  r.  Cniu  (19  Neb.  488)  108!) 

V.  WliiiMktT  (:!0  Ala.  2;i7)  :iU 

Saxtoii  ('.  Clianibcrlaiii  (G  Tick.  422)  112(1 

Saver  v.  IJeiii>ett  281 

■  V  Saver  (2  Veni.  088)  908 
Savles  V  Uaker  (5  R.  I.  457)                       1220 

■  r.  15rif,-s  (4  Met.  Ma<s.  421)  330 
Savior  r.  I'owell  (!)()  N.  i\  202)  :03 
Savre  v.  Ilelme  (01  Fa.  St  2.)!))  3.-)!) 
SI)arboro's  Kstate  (Mvr.  2."')5)  4!l!) 
Scales  V.  Scales  (0  .Jones  E.|.  103)  940 
Scaniinell  r.  Wilkinson  (2  Ivist,  5-52)  20 
Scamnion  r.  Campbell  (75  HI.  223)  261,  202 
Scanlan  v.  Turner  (1  Bai.  L.  421)                  2.r2 

V.  Writrht  (13  Pick.  523)  22 

ScarboroMiih  v.  State  (24  Ark.  20)  112') 

V.  Watkins  (9  H.  Mon.  540)  077 

Scarce  v.  Pat^e  (12  B.  Mon.  311 )  390 

Schaaber's  Appeal  (13  .\tl.  R.  775)  48 

Schad's  Appeal  (88  Pa.  St.  Ill)  61 

Schadt  r.  Hcppe  (45  Cal.  4-!3)  210 

Sciia.fer  v.  Causev  (8  Mo.  App.  142)  1080 
Schaeffer's  Appeal  (119  Pa.  St.  040)  1228 

Schaeffer  v.  Weed  (8  111.  511)  239 

Schneffuer's  Appeal  (41  Wis.  200)  3.51 

Schafer  v.  Causev  (76  Mo.  305)  1080 

r.  Kneu  (54  Pa.  St.  304)  141 

Scliaffer's  Succession  (13  La.  .An.  113)  1254 
Schaffer  r.  Kettell  (14  Allen,  .528)  9.37 

Sehaffner  v.  Grutzmacher  (6  Iowa,  137)  183 
Schafvotii  i\  Ambs  (46  Mo.  114)  607,  008 

Schedel,  In  re  (09  Cal.  241)  1204 

In  re  (73  Cal.. 594)  8')7 

Scbee  v.  Wiseman  (79  Ind.  389)  593,  0  >1 

Schenck  r.  Dart  (22  N.  Y.  420)  1 108 

V.  Yail  (24  \.  .1.  V.q.  ,538)  147,  151 

SchenkI  v.  Dana  (118  Mass.  230)  284 

Scherer  v.  Ingerman  (110  Ind.  428)  833, 

1020,  1029 
Schermerborn  v.  Ne.£:us  (1  Denio,  448)  955 
Schick  V.  Ci-ote  (42  N.  J.  Eq.  3.52)  1208 

Scliieffi'lin  v.  Stewart  (1  .John.  Ch.  620)  1138 
Schiffer  v.  Pruden  (04  N.  Y.  47)  227 

Schildknecht  v.  Hompf  (4  S.  W.  R.  235)  34 
Schmidt  V.  Heusner  (4  Dem.  275)  003 

Schmitt  V.  Willis  (40  N.  .T.  Eri.515)  20-3. 1074 
Schmittlcr  v.  Simon  (101  N.  Y.  554)  043.  757 
Schmncker  v.  Reel  (01  .Mo.  ,502)  870,  877 

Schneblv  v.  Schneblv  (20  111.  110)  230 

Schneider  v.  Brav  (.59  Tex.  008)  199,  207 

r.  Hnffniann"  (9  Mo.  App.  280)  212 

V.  McKarland  (2  X.  Y.  45.1)  1054 

V.  Manninir  (121  111.-370)  34 

Schnell  v.  Chica<jo  (38  III.  382)        10-32,  1037 

V.  Schroder  (Bail.  Eq.  334)  391,  054 

Schoeneich  v.  Reed  (8  Mo.  App.  350)  172, 

803,  1152,  115-5,  1170 

Schofield  V.  Heap  (27  Beav.  93)  978 

V.  Walker  (-58  Mich.  90)  46.  47 

Scholefield  v.  Eichelberger  (7  Pet.  586)     281. 

282 
Sehoolfield  V.  Rudd  (9  B.  Mon.  291)  645 

Schoppert  v.  Gillam  (6  Rich.  Eq.  83)  8  i2 

Schott's  Estate  (78  Pa.  St.  40)  87  ~,  878 

Sclireiber  v.  Sharpless  (110  U.  S.  76)  ()20 

Schroeder's  Estate  (46  Cal   304)  7it3 

Schroeder  v.  Superior  Court  (70  Cal.  343)  574, 

577 


Page 

Schug's  Appeal  (14  W.  N.  C.  49)  10.57 

Schull  r.  Mi.rrav  (32  Md.  9)  27,  3,52,  408 

Sehultz  V.  Pulver  (11  Wend.  361)        359,  363, 

365,  073,  677 

V.  Schnltz  (10  Grat.  .3-58)  498 

V.  Sehultz  (35  N.Y.t)53)  481 

Schuniaker  r.  Schmidt  (44  Ala.  454)  ,57 

Scluirtz  )•.  Thomas  (8  I'a.  St.  359)  1006 

Schutt  V.  Missionary  Soc.  (41  N.  J.  Eq 


115) 


59 


Schuvler  1'.  Hovle  (5  .John.  Ch.  196)  639 

Schwallenbern-  ?•. -lennings  (43  Md.  552)   1003 

Schwartz's  Appeal  (119  Pa.  St.  337)  918 

I'>tate  (14  Pa.  St.  42)  1142 

Estate  (12  I'hila.  11)  1058 

Scofieid  V.  Adams  (12  Hun,  .366)  987,  988 

V.  Churchill  (72  N.  Y.  505}  .547,  -548 

V.  Olcott  (120  111.  362)  883,  941,  942, 

943 

•Scofftjins  r.  Turner  (98  X.  C.  135)  92 

Scogin  V.  Stacv  (20  Ark  265)  609 

Scott's  Appeal  (112  Pa.  St.  427)  1131 

Estate  (15  Cal.  220)  440 

Estate  (9  Watts  &  S.  98)  1149,  11-50 

Scott  r.  Bnrch  (6  H.  &  .J.  07)  702 

V.  Cheatham  (78  Va.  82)  205,  212 

V.  Crews  (72  Mo.  201)  394,  749,  1 137, 

1182 

V.  Dorsev  (1  liar.  &  .T.  227)  1153 

r.  Dunn"(l  D.  v^t  B.  Eq.  425)  108) 

r.  Fink  (45  Mich.  241)  100 

r.  F'ox  (14  Md.  -388)  342,  -393 

r.  Governor  (1  j\I  ..  080)  600,  1 1 40 

r.  Hancock  (13  Mass.  102)  843 

V.  Kennedv  (12  B.  Mon.  510)  1120 

r.  Kev  (11  La.  An.  232)  157 

r.  Liwson  (10  La.  An.  547)  576 

r.  Monell  (1  Redf.  431)  11-53 

r.  Newsom  (27  Ga.  125)  713 

V.  Patchin  (-54  Vt.  2.53)  1100 

r.  Price  (2  Seri,'.  &  R.  -59)     •  950 

r.  Pnrcell;7  Blackf.  66)  249 

f.  Ratcliffe  (5  Pet.  81)  446 

V.  Searles  (7  Sm.  &  M.  498)  693,  740 

V.  Spashett  ^3  Mac.  &  G.  599)  1015 

r.  Sfehhins  (91  N.  Y.  605)  989 

V  Ware  (04  Ala.  174)  843,  1022 

V.  West  (63  W^is.  529)  383,  723,  815, 

8!I6,  942,  1185 

Scovil  V.  Scovil  (45  Barb.  517)  842 

Scoville's  Estate  (20  III.  App.  426)       183, 18:) 

Scoville  V.  Post  (3  Edw.  303)  414 

Scranton  v.  Demere  (0  Ga.  92)  431 

Scribner  v.  Williams  (1  Pai.  5-50)      499,  1208, 

1209 
Seroggin  v.  Scroggin  (1  .T.  ,T.  Marsh.  302)  3.30 
Scroggs  V.  Stevenson  (100  N.  C.  354)       1107, 

1108,  1173 

V.  Tutt  (20  Kan.  271)  809,  820 

Scrnggs  V.  Foot  (19  S.  C.  274)  215 

Seabright  v.  Seabri<rht  (28  W.  Va.  412)     1190 

Seabrook  v.  Freeman  (3  MctJord,  371)        410 

V.  Seabrook  (10  Rich.  Eq.  495)  903 

Seagrave  v.  Seatrrave  (13  Ves.  439)  226 

Seaman  ?).  Durvea  (10  Barb.  523)  1250 

V.  Dnrvea"(ll  N.  Y.  324)  320,  1250 

V.  Whitehead  (78  N.  Y.  306)  ^  1146 

Seaman's  Friend  Soc.  v.  Hopper  (33  N.  Y 


619) 


34 


Search's  Appeal  (13  Pa.  St.  108) 

Search  v.  Search  (27  N.  J.  Eq.  137)  357, 1124 


CXVl 


TABLE   OF   CASES. 


Searcy  v.  Holmes  (43  Ala.  fi08)  1 128 

Searing  v.  Searinct  (9  Pai.  28'!)  Oo!) 

Searles  v.  Seott  (22  Miss.  !>■!)  1  182 

Sears  v.  Dillingham  (12  Mass.  358)    582.  12r,4 

V.  Giddev  (41  Mich.  590)  7(!2 

Sechrest  v.  E'dwanls  (4  Met.  Kv.  163)  1208  I 
Secor  V.  Sentis  (5  Redf.  570)  1174 

Security  Co.  v.  Bryant  (52  Conn.  311)        1)85 

?).  Hardenbiirgh  (53  Conn.  101))  t»'.)i) 

Sedffwick  v.  Asiil)unier  (1  Bradf.  105)        737 

I',  Minot  (6  .\llen.  171)  ]4(i,  149,  903 

Seegar  v.  Betton  (<>  H.  &  J.  162)  551 

Seek  V.  Haynes  (08  Mo.  13)  205 

Seeley's  Appeal  (14  Atl.  K.  291)  266 

Seelvr.  Beck  (42  Mo.  143)  534 

Seibert's  Appeal  (19  Pa.  St.  49)  356.  1007 
Seibert  v.  Wise  (70  Pa.  St.  147)  872 

Seider  v.  Seider  (5  Whart.  20S)  3.50 

Seighman  r.  Marshall  (17  M<1.  550)  1116,  1125 
Sei'tz,  In  re  (6  Mo.  App.  250)  1170 

Selb  V.  Montague  (102  111.  446)  1056 

Selbv's  Estate  (Mvr   125)  865 

SelbV  V.  Hollinijsworih  (13  Lea,  145)  145 

Selden  v.  Keen  (27  Grat.  .570)  962 

Selectmen  v.  Bovlston  (2  Mass.  384)  363, 

374,  649 
Selin  V.  Snyder  (7  S.  &  E.  166)  331 

Selleek  r.  French  (1  Am.  Lead.  Cas.)  1137 
Seller's  Estate  (82  Pa.  St   153)  670 

Sellew's  Appeal  (36  Conn.  180)  1129,  1131 
Selling.  Matter  of  (5  Dem.  225)  1228 

Selma  R.  R.  Co.  r.  Lacey  (49  Ga.  106)  629 
Selna's  Estate  (Myr.  233)  1136 

Seloyer  v.  Coe  (63  N.  Y.  4-38)  1264,  1270 

Semine  v.  Semine  (2  Ley.  90)  587 

Semmes  v.  Semmcs  (7  Har.  &  J.  388)     91,  94 

V.  Young  (10  Md.  242)  821,  822,  843 

Semoice  v.  Semoice  (35  Ala.  295)  1128 

Senger  r.  Senger  (81  Ya.  687)  892,  893,  8;)9 
Sentell  v.  Armor  (35  Ark.  49)  201 

Sergeant  v.  Steinbertrer  (2  Ohio.  305)  233 

Serie  v.  St.  Eloy  (2  P.  Wm«.  386)  1106 

Sermon  v.  Black  (79  Ala.  507)  1035 

Sessions  v.  Moseley  (4  Cush.  87)  122.  124 
Sessoms  v.  Sessoms  (2  Dey.  &  B.  Eq.  453)  966 
Seyerance  v.  Hammatt  (28  Me.  511)  8.55 

Seyerin  v.  Zack  (55  Inwa.  28)  41 

Seyier  v.  Gordon  (21  La.  An.  373)  796 

V.  Teal  (16  Tex.  371)  342 

Sewall  V.  Cargill  (15  Me.  414)  924 

V.  Bobbins  (139  Mass.  164)  95 

V.  Wilmer  (132  Mass.  131)  496 

Seward  v.  Clark  (67  Ind.  28:1)  1196 

Sewell  V.  Stingluff  (62  Md.  592)  1125 

Sexton  V.  Pickering  (3  Rand.  468)  249 

Seymour  v.  Seymour  (22  Conn.  272)        1045, 

1090 

V.  Seymour  (4  John.  Ch.  409)      357,  440, 

1123 
Shackelford  v.  Hall  (19  111.  212)  963 

V.  Miller  (91  N.  C.  181)  272 

V.  Runyan  (7  Humph.  141)  748 

Shackleford  v.  Brown  (89  Mo.  .546)  116 

Shaeffer  v.  Shaeffer  (.^4  :\Id.  679)  763 

Shafer  ?;.  Grimes  (23  Iowa.  550)  624 

Shaffer's  Appeal  (46  Pa.  St.  131)  677 

Shaffer  r.  Richardson  (27  Ind.  122)  226 

V.  Shaffer  (50  Pa.  St.  394)  260 

Shailer  v.  Bumstead  (99  Mass.  112)       46,  48, 

477,  490 
Shakeley  v.  Taylor  (1  Bond,  142)  1085 


Paje 

Shakespeare  v.  Fidelity  Co.  (97  Pa.   St. 

173)  441 

r.  Markham  (lOHun,  .311)  .58 

V.  Markham  (72  N.  Y.  400)  349 

Shale  V.  Schantz  (35  Hun,  622)  624 

Shallcross  v.  Finden  (3  Ves.  738)  1099 

V.  Palmer  (16  A.  &  E.  747)  490 

Shalter's  Appeal  (43  Pa.  St.  83)  553 

Shanks  v.  Klein  (104  Otto,  18)  289 

V.  Lancaster  (5  (Irat.  110)  2.50 

Shannon  v.  Shannon  (111  ]\Iass.  331)  493 

V.  White  (109  Mass.  140)  184 

Shaper  v.  Enen  (54  Pa.  St.  .304)  522 

Share  v.  Andersen  (7  S.  &  R.  43)  252 

Sharkey's  Estate  (2  Phila.  276)  547 

Siiarkey  v.  Bankst.w  (30  La.  An.  891)      1080 

V.  iMcDermott  (91  Mo.  647)  140 

V.  McDermott  (16  Mo.  App  80)  140 

Sharland  v.  Mildon  (5  Hare.  468)  417 

Sharp's  Estate  (11  Phila.  92)  1167 

Sharp  r.  Caldwell  (7  Humph.  415)  632 

V.  Sharp  (35  Ala.  574)  857 

V.  Sharp  (76  Ala.  312)         341,  1022,  1035 

V.  Sharp  (2  Leigh,  249)  488 

Sharpe  v.  Rockwood  (78  Va.  24)        710,  1117 

Shattnck  v.  Gragg  (23  Pick.  88)  229,  2ri8 

r.  Young  (2  Sni.  &  M.  .30)  1231 

Shauffler  v.  Stoeyer  (4  S.  &  R.  202)  588. 1204 

Shaver  r.  McCarthy  (110  Pa.  St.  339)     31.  42 

Shaw  r.  Berrv  (35  Me.  279)  733 

V.  Boyd  (5  S.  &  R.  309)  251,  264 

~  '■     "   " —  699 

828 

681 

421 

392 

1149 

1201 

684,  1045 

249 

1171 

271 

490 

259.  748 

041 

486 

2^)9 

22 

2)0 

1247 

897,  898 

1125 


Coble  (63  N.  C.  377) 
V.  Gookin  (7  N.  H.  16) 
V.  Groomer  (60  Mo.  495) 
V.  Hallihan  (46  Vr.  389) 
V.  IMcCamenni  (11  S.  &  R.  252) 
V.  Moderwell  (104  111.  64) 
V.  Newell  (9  R.  I.  Ill) 
V.  Nicholay  (-30  Mo.  99) 
r.  Ru.ss  (14  Me.  4-32) 
V.  Shaw  (3  Cent.  R.  .592) 
V.  Shaw  (2  Dana,  341) 
V.  Shaw  (1  Dem.  21) 
Shawhan  v.  Loffor  (24  Iowa,  217) 
Shay  V.  Sessanian  (10  Pa.  St.  432) 
Shea  V.  Boschctti  (18  Beay.  -321) 
Sheafe  v.  Spring  (9  INIass.  9) 
Sheaffe  v.  O'Xeil  (1  Mass.  2.56) 
Shearer  v.  Paine  (12  Allen,  289) 
Shearin  v.  Eaton  (2  Ired.  Eq.  282) 
Shearman  v.  Angel  (Bai.  Eq.  351) 
V.  Christian  (9  Leicch,  571) 
V.  Pyke  (3  Curt.  539) 
Shee  V.  French  (3  Drew.  716) 

V.  Hale  (13  Ves.  404) 
Sheedv  v.  Roach  (124  Mass.  472) 
Sheeh'an  v.  Kennellv  (32  Ga.  145) 
Sheetz's  Appeal  (100  Pa.  St.  197) 
Sheetz  v.  Kirtley  (62  Mo.  417) 


Shegogg  V.  Perkins  (-34  Ark.  117) 

Shelby'!;.  S'-elby  (1  B.  Mnn.  2fi(i) 

Sheldon  v.  Warner  (59  ]Mich.  444) 

Sheldon  v.  Bliss  (8  N.  Y.  31) 

V.  Court  of  Probate  (5  R.  I.  436) 
V.  Dow  (1  Dem.  503) 
V.  Newton  (3  Oh.  St.  494)  330,  1034,  1089 
V.  Rice  (30  Mich.  296)  3.59,  368,  442,  702 
V.  Woodbridge  (2  Root,  473)  702 

V.  Wright  (7  Barb.  39)        562,  564,  1034, 
1049,  1136 


657 

956 

118 

740 

1150 

1126,  1131, 

11-32 

1123 

1240 

679 

174 

1201 

43 


TABLE   OF    CASES. 


CXVll 


Shelley's  Case  (1  Co.  93) 
Shdlv's  Case  (1  Salk.  296) 
Shelton  v.  Armor  (13  Ala.  047) 
V.  Berry  (19  Tex.  154) 
V.  Homer  (5  Met.  Mass.  462) 
V.  Hurst  (16  Lea,  470) 
V.  Shelton  (94  Ind.  113) 


Page 
900 
760 
250 
812 
722 
208 
254 
Shepard  r.  National  Bank  (67  111.  292)  807 
r.  Parker  (13  Ired.  L.  103)  1166 

V.  Patterson  (3  Uem.  183)  707 

V.  Shepard  (19  Fla.  300)     677,  697,  1145, 
1150,  1161 
V.  Spaulding  (4  Met.  Mass.  416)  606 

V.  Taylor  (15  K.  I.  204)  154 

Shephard'r.  Curriel  (19  III.  313)  494 

V.  Rhodes  (60  111.  301)  568,  1204 

Shepherd  v.  Howard  (2  N.  H.  507)  249 

V.  Nabors  (6  Mm.  631)  61,  902 

Sheppard  v.  Bof,-i.-s  (9  Neb.  257)  291.  292 

V.  Starke  (3  Mimf.  2.))  1230 

Sheridan  v.  Hought-.n  (6  Abb.  N.C.234)  482 
SSieriff  V.  Bnnvn  (5  Mac  key,  172)  871.  878 
Sherlev  v.  Sherlev  (81  Ky.  240)  31,  35 

Sherman  v.  Angel  (2  Hill  Ch.  26)  1147 

r.  Chace  (9  R.  I.  166)  1125 

V.  Kreiil  (42  Wis.  33)  287 

V.  Lanier  (39  N.  J.  Eq.  249)  340,  709 

V.  Newton  (6  Gray,  307)  270 

V.  Page  (85  N.  ¥."123)         359,  360,  364, 
665,673,  1184 
V.  Sherman  (36  N.  J.  Eq.  125)  1000 

Sherry's  Estate  (7  Abb.  N.  Cas.  390)  326 

Sherry  v.  Lozier  (1  BradC.  437)  105,  106 

Sherwood  v.  American  Bible  Soc.  (4  Abb. 
App.  Dec.  227)  912 

V.  Hill  (25  Mo.  .391)  660 

V.  Johnson  (1  Wend.  443)  776 

V.  Smith  (23  Conn.  516)  1220 

Shields  V.  Allen  (77  N.  C.  375)  1080 

V.  Alsup  (5  Lea,  508)  822,  1125,  1190 

V.  Anderson  (3  Leigh,  729)  420,  422 

V.  Ashley  (16  Mo.  471)  1033,  1195 

V.  Batts"(5  J.  .J.  Marsh,  12)  259 

V.  Ingram  (5  Redf.  346)  490 

V.  McDowell  (82  N.  C.  137)  1040 

V.  Odell  (27  Oh.  St.  .398)  1140 

V.  Shields  (60  Barb.  56)         544,  545,  578 
V.  Sullivan  (3  Dem.  296)  766 

Shiell  V.  Sloan  (22  S.  C.  151)  244 

Shillaber  v.  Wyman  (15  Mass.  322)  426 

Shilton's  Estate  (Tuck.  73)  526 

Shindel's  Appeal  (57  Pa.  St.  43)  1124 

f^hine  v.  Redwine  (30  Ga.  780)  342 

Shipley,  Ex  parte  (4  Md.  493)  705 

Shipman  v.  Buttertield  (47  Mich.  487)  561,  563 
V.  Rollins  (98  N.  Y.  311)  912 

Shipp  V.  Dayis  (2  S.  E.  R.  549)  835 

Shippen  V.  Burd  (42  Pa.  St.  461)  1176 

Shirley  v.  Healds  (34  N.  H.  407)         384,  410 
V.  Shirley  (9  Pal.  363)  607 

V.  Whitehead  (1  Ired.  Eq.  130)     116,  120 
Shiyer  v.  Rousseau  (68  Ala.  564)  855 

Shiyers  v.  Goar  (40  Ga.  676)  960 

Shoemaker's  Appeal  (106  Pa.  St.  -392)      1002 
Shoemaker  i'.  Brown  (10  Kan.  383)    340,  356, 

821.  1123 

V.  National  Bank  (2  Abb.  U.  S.  416)  858 

V.  Walker  (2  S.  &  R.  554)  2-i6 

Shoemate  v.  Lockridi-e  (.53  III.  .503)  1032 

Shoenberger   v.   Lancaster   (20   Pa.    St. 

459)  384,  385 


Pns'p 
Shofner  v.  Shofner  (5  Sneed,  94)  5'j9 

ShoUenberger's  Appeal  (21  Pa.  St.  337)   340. 

344 

Shomo's  Appeal  (57  Pa.  St.  .356)  532,  533 

Shontz  r.  Brown  (27  Pa.  St.  123)  1065 

Shoolbred  r.  Dravton  (2  Des.  246)  595 

Shore  v.  Wilson  (9  CI.  &  Fin.  355)  871 

Shores  v.  Carlev  (8  Alkn.  425)  276,  27^ 

Short  V.  .Johnson  (25  111.  489)  749 

V.  Smith  (4  East,  419)  93 

Shortall  V.  Hinckley  (31  111.  219)  277 

Shortridge  r.  Easley  (10  Ala.  450)  787 

Shouse  V.  Krusor  (24  Mo.  App.  279)  6-36 

Showers  v.  Robinson  (43  Mich.  502)    200,  204, 

205,  214,  215,  1075,  1076 

V.  Showers  (27  Pa.  St.  485)  63 

Shreiuer's  Appeal  (53  Pa.  St.  106)  873 

Shreye  v.  Joyce  (36  N.  J.  L.  44)  7-36 

r.  Shreve  (10  N.  J.  Eq.  385)       968,  1094 

V.  Shreye  (17  N.  J.  Eq.  487)  1094 

Shriyer  v.  State  (65  Md.  278)     155,  444, 1015, 

1230,  1251 

Shropshire  v.  Reno  (5  J.  J.  Marsh.  91)  43 

V.  Withers  (5  J.  J.  Marsh.  210)  528 

Shroyer  v.  Richmond  (16  Oh.  St.  455)       325, 

326.  330,  331,  1089 

Shuler  v.  Millsaps  (71  N.  C.  297)  624 

ShuU  r.  Johnson  (2  Jones  Eq.  202)  899 

V.  Kennon  (12  Ind.  -34)  342 

Shultz  V.  Johnson  (5  B.  Mon.  497)  687 

V.  Pulver  (3  Pai    182)  363,  677 

V.  Sanders  (38  N.  J.  Eq.  154)  457 

Shuman  v.  Reigart  (7  \V.  &  S.  168)  640 

Shumway  v.  Cooper  (16  Barb.  556)     344,  518 

V.  Holbrook  (1  Pick.  114)  467 

Shupp  V.  Gaylord  (103  Pa.  St.  319)  1102 

Shurbun  v.  Hooper  (40  Mich.  503)  8o4 

Shurtliff  V.  Witherspoon  (1  Sni.  &  M.  613)  1167 

Shute  r.  Shute  (5  Dem.  1)  767 

Sluittleworth  v.  Winter  (55  N.  Y.  624)       666 

Sibley  v.  Cook  (3  Atk.  572)  936 

V.  Snnonton  (20  Fed.  H.  784)    1265,  1272 

V.  Waffle  (16  N.  Y.  180)  323 

Sibthorp  v.  Moxom  (3  Atk.  580)  936 

Sidall  V.  Harrison  (15  Pac.  R.  130)  354 

Sidle  V.  Anderson  (45  Pa.  St.  464)  795 

Sifford  V.  Morrison  (63  Md.  14)  549 

Siglar  I'.  Havwood  (8  Wheat.  675)  792 

Sigournev  v.  Munn  (7  Conn.  11)  291 

V.  Sibley  (21  Pick.  101)  571 

V.  Sibley  (22  Pick.  507)  526,  571 

V.  Wetherell  (6  Met.  553)  6-^ 

Sikes  V.  Parker  (95  N.  C.  232)  831 

V.  Truitt  (4  Jones  Eq.  -361)  554 

Silcox  V.  Nelson  (24  Ga.  84)  •  944 

V.  Nelson  (1  Ga.  Dec.  24)  173 

Siler  t:  Gray  (86  N.  C.  566)  687 

Sdl  V.  McKiiight  (7  W.  &  S.  244)  .508 

r.  >ill  (31  Kan.  270)  268,  269 

r.  Sill  (-39  Kan.  189)  1148 

Silliiigs  r.  Baumgardener  (9  Grat.  273)     1230 

Silver  ?'.  Williams  (17  S.  &  R-  292)  780 

Silverbrandt  v.  Widmever  (2  Dem.  263)     OliG 

Silverman  v.  Chase  (90'  111.  37)  287 

Silvers  v.  Canary  (109  Ind.  267)  729 

V.  ( 'anarv  (114  Ind.  129)     941, 1012,  12(i9 

Silverthorn's  Will  (68  Wis.  372)  37 

Silverthorn  v.  McKinster  (12  Pa.  St.  67)  1086 

Silvev's  Estate  (42  Cal.  210)  266 

Simar  r.  Canadav  (53  N.  Y.  298)  240 

Simmermann  v.  isonger  (29  Grat.  9) 


46 


CXVIU 


TABLE   OF   CASES. 


SiiiuiKiMs  r.  HiKK>-  (!'!'  >»'•  (^-  2W)  047 

V.  Uhuiclianl  (40  'IVx.  200)  lOilO 

V.  Holhiiul  (.i  Meriv.  547)  7iii) 

V.  Bvnl  (4U  (iii.  28r>)  11 '.2 

V.  Glodell  (03  N.  H.  458)         1131,  iV',2. 

120!) 

V.  Heman  (17  Mo.  App.  444)  070 

V.  Heiuk'isdii  (bveeui.  Cli.  4'.).J)  341 

V.  Hendricks  (8  lied.  Eq   84)  354 

V.  Lvie  (32  Grat.  752)  25G,  2.-.8 

V.  Price  (18  Ala.  405)  1255 

t'.  KudalUl  Siin.  U.  S.  115)  U-t 

V.  Simmons  (20  Barb.  08)  87,  97,  101 

V.  Sisson  (20  N.  Y.  204)  832 

Sininis  v.  Garrot  (1  Dev.  &  B.  Eq.  393)     902 

V.  Kichard.son  (32  Ark.  297)  800,  8til 

Simon  V.  Albright  (12  8.  &  K.  429)  733 

Simonds  v.  Simonds  (3  Met.  Mass.  558)      9.55 

Simonton  v.  Brown  (72  N.  C.  46)  1074 

V.  McLane  (25  Ala.  353)  414,  417 

Simpson's  Appeal  (109  I'a.  St.  383)  1228 

Simpson,  In  re  (50  How.  Pr.  125)  101 

V.  Cook  (24  Minn.  180)  504,  721 

V.  Cureton  (97  N.  C.  112)'  178,  184 

I'.  Graves  (Kiley  Ch.  232)  GIO 

V.  Jones  (82  N.  C.  323)  580 

v.  Leech  (80  III.  280)  234,290 

V.  Mansfield  Co.  (38  Mich.  020)  1202 

V.  Moore  (30  Barb.  037)  1004 

V.  Pearson  (31  Ind.  1)  1049 

V.  Reily  (31  Tex.  298)  800 

V.  Simpson  (114  111.  003)  1216,  1220 

V.  Simpson  (16  111.  Ai)p.  170)  149 

V.  Snyder  (54  Iowa,  557)  645 

V.  Speiice  (5  Jones  Ecj.  2*  8)  890 

V.  Wallace  (83  N.  C.  477)  207 

V.  Welcome  (72  Me.  490)  922 

Sims  V.  Aiifrhtery  (4  Strobh.  Eq.  103)       1247 

V.  Eerrill  (45  Ga.  585)  1072 

t:  Grav  (00  Mo.  613)  1000 

V.  Rickets  (35  Ind.  181)  609 

V.  Sims  (30  Miss.  333)  1155 

V.  Sims  (10  N.  J.  Eq.  158)  980 

V.  Stilwell  (3  How.  Miss.  176)  795 

V.  Thompson  (39  Ark.  301)  201 

Sinclair's  Will  (5  Oh.  St.  290)  481 

Sinclair  v.  Hone  (6  Ves.  607)  55 

Singerly's  Estate  (14  Phila.  313)  955 

Singleton  v.  Bremar  (4  McCord,  12)  61 

V.  Singleton  (8  B.  Mon.  340)  469 

v.  Singleton  (5  Dana,  87)  599,  1182 

Singree  r.  Welch  (32  Oh.  St.  320)  242 

Sip  V.  Lawback  (17  N.  J    L.  442)  1075 

Sipperlv  v.  Baucus  (24  N.  Y.  40)       323.  1131 

Siron  r'.  Knleman  (32  Grat.  215)  1098 

Sisk  V.  Smith  (6  III.  603)  230 

Sisters  of  Visitation  v.  Glass  (45  Iowa, 

154)  1208 

Siter's  Case  (4  Rawle,  468)  640 

Sitzman  v.  Pacquette  (13  Wis.  291)  323,  583, 

1034.  1255 
Sivelev  v.  Summers  (.57  Md.  712)  538.  1062 
Sixtv-Seventh  Street,  Matter  of  (00  How. 

Pi".  264)  730 

Sizemore  v.  Wedge  (20  La.  An.  124)  329 

Skeggs  V.  Hortoii  (82  Ala.  3.52)  481,  484 

Skeilenger  v.   Skellenger  (32  N.  J.    Eq. 

6.59)  236, 1233 

Skerrett,  In  re  (67Cal.585)  61 

Skidmore  r.  Davies  (10  I'ai.  306)  571 

Skiles  V.  Houston  (110  Pa.  St.  254)  827 


P.lfTB 

Skillern  v.  Mav  (6  Cr.  267)  325 

Skillmaii  V.  Slullniaii  (13  X.  J.  Eq.  403)     611 

Skinner  v.  Eriersen  (8  Ala.  SUo)  793 

V.  Wvniie  (2  Jones  E<|.  41)  1210 

SkipwithV.  Cabell  (19  Giat    758)  55,  8<I2 

Skouten  v.  Wood  (57  Mo.  38:))  197.  215 

Skrine  *;.  Simmons  (11  (in.  401)  0!)6 

Slack  V.  Emery  (30  N.  J.  E(i.  458)  1105 

Slade  V.  Eooks  (9  Sim.  380)  8i»9 

V.  Patten  (08  Me.  380)  917 

V.  Slade  (10  Vt.  192)  1137 

V.  Street  (27  Ga.  17)  497 

V.  Washb;;rn  (3  Ired.  L.  557)         402,  ,509 

Slagle  V.  Entrekin  (44  Oh.  St.  037)    540,  547, 

583,  589,  748 

Slater  v.  Mav  (2  Ld.  Ravm.  1071)  405 

V.  Nason  (15  Pick.  345)  22,  306 

Slatler  v.  Slatter  (1  Y.  &  C.  28)  520 

Slaughter  r.  Eroman  (5  T.  B.  Mon.  19)       744 

V.  McBride  (69  Ala.  510)  201 

V.  Stephens  (81  Ala.  418)  491 

Slauler  v.  Chenowith  (7  Ind.  211)  301 

Sleech  V.  Thoringlon  (2  Ves.  Sr.  500)        1015 

Sleight  .;.  Lawson  (3  Kav  &  J.  392)  798 

Sliiiger  V.  Calverlv  (37  N.  W.  K.  2:i0)  38,440 

Slingerland,  Matter  of  (30  Hun,  575)  680,  682 

'  -^      '     -"•  881 

743 

41,43 

370 

180 

1028 

650 

214,  1076 

546, 

552 

1202 

232 

40 

477 

24 

881 

601) 

209 

693 

223 

509 

432 

1129 

93 

1131 

609 

1120 

883 

973 

608 

216,  1037 

400 


Sloan  c.  Hanse  (2  Rawle.  28) 

V.  Johnson  (14  Sin.&  M.47) 

V.  Maxwell  (3  N,  J.  Eq.  563) 

V.  Sloan  (21  Ma.  589) 

V.  Webb  (26  Tex.  189) 
Slocum  V.  English  (02  N.  Y.  494) 

V.  Sanford  (2  Conn.  533) 
Sluder  v.  Rogers  (04  X.  C.  289) 
Small  V.  Commonwealth  (8  Pa.  St.  101) 

V.  Haskins  (26  Vt.  209) 
V.  Proctor  (15  Mass.  495) 
r.  Small  (4  Me.  220) 

Smalley  v  Smalley  (70  Me.  54^) 

Smallvvood  v.  Brickhouse  (2  ^lod.  315) 

Smart  v.  Clark  (3  Russ.  C.  ('-  3ii5) 
V  Easley  (5  J.  J    Marsh.  214) 
V.  Waterhose  (10  Yerg.  94) 
V.  Watterhouse  (0  Humph   158) 
V.  Whaley  (6  Sm.&M.  308) 

Smethurst  r   Toinlin  (2  S\v.  &  Tr,  143) 

Sniilev  V   Bell  (M.  &  Y   378) 
•(•:  Cockrell  (92  Mo.  105) 
i:  Gambill  (2  Head,  164) 
V.  Smilev  (80  Mo   44) 
V.  Smilev  (18  Oh.  St    543) 

Smihe?;.  Siler  (35  Ala.  88) 

Smith's  Appeal  (23  Pa.  St   9) 
Appeal  (103  Pa.  St.  559) 
Appeal  (115  Pa.  St.  319) 
Estate  1 51  Cal  563) 
Succession  (3  So.  R.  539) 
Will  (6  Phila.  104)  »5 

Will  (52  Wis.  543)  34,  68 

Smith,  Ex  parte  (53  Cal.  204)  1249 

Matter  of  (95  N.  Y.  516)  835 

V.  Allen  (5  Allen,  4.54)  610 

V.  Anderson  (31  Oh.  St.  144)  1045 

V.  Ashurst  (34  Ala,  208)  895 

V.  Axtell  (1  N.  J.  Eq.  494)  1033 

V.  Aver  (101  U.  S.  320)  282,  693 

V.  Bavlis  (3  Dem.  567)  1230 

V.  Bell  (6  Pet.  68)  874,  878.  947,  948 

V.  Blackwell  (31  Grat.  291)  774 

V.  Bland  (7  B.  Man.  21)  636 


648 


TABLE   OF   CASES. 


CXIX 


Siuitli  I'.  Bone  (7  Bush,  367)  2(>8 

V.  B(.iij.all  (o  Itawle,  80)  &l)l 

V.  Brittoii  (Vo  How.  Pr.  •428)  070 

V.  Britton  (2  I'att.  &  H.  12-i)  llufi 

V.  Browu  (99  N.  C.  377)  8-13,  1041 

V.  Brj'ant  (GO  Ala.  235)  787 

V.  Burnet  (35  N.  J.  Eq.  314)  835 

V.  Callovvav  (7  Blackf.  80)  1247 

V.  Carrere  U  Rich.  Eq.  123)  745,  1182 

V.  Carroll  (4  Green,  Iowa,  14G)  004 

V.  Carroll  (112  Pa.  St.  390)  093,  1099 

V.  Chenault  (48  Tex.  455)  200 

v.  Chenev  (I  Robins.  98)  1107 

V.  Chew  "(35  Miss.  153)  695,  1002 

V.  Clav  (Amb.645)  1110 

V.  CoUamer  (2  Dem.  147)  078 

V.  Crater  (43  N.  J.  Eq.  036)  859,  801 

V.  Cunninyhain  (1  Add.  448)  101 

V.  Curtis  (2 J  N.  J.  L.  345)  946 

V.  Uenman  (48  Ind.  05)  808 

V.  Uensou  (2  Sm.  &  M.  320)  1059 

V.  Dolbv  (4  Harr.  350)  70 

V.  Dowiiev  (3  Ired.  Eq.  268)  125,  780 
V.  Drake  (23  N.  J.  Eq.  302)  702,  703,  1087 

V.  Du  Bose  (3  S.  E.  R.  309)  4i) 

V.  Dutton  (16  Me.  308)  1023 

V.  Dver  (10  Mass.  18)  5)3 

V.  Eiirington  (8  Cr.  60)  887 

V.  Edwards  (1  Houst.  427)  82 S 

v.  Ellnigton  (14  Ga.  379)  774 

V.  Eustis  (7  Me.  41)  237 

V.  Evans  (1  VVils.  313)  03 
V.  Fellows  (131  xMass.  20)   988.  1098,  110:! 

V.  Fenner  (1  Gall.  C.  C.  170)  51,  92,  4.J0 

V.  Fenjuson  (90  Ind.  229)  122 

V.  Field  (0  Dana,  361)  1005 

■      V.  Fox  (82  Va.  763)  8)7 

V.  Gaines  (36  N.  J.  Eq.  297)  151 

V.  Garev  (2  D.  &  B.  Eq.  42)  650 

V.  GentVv  (16  Ga.  31)  307 

t?.  Gill  (37  Minn.  455)  1208 

i;.  GiUain  (80  Ala.290)  800 

V.  Gilmore  (13  Mo.  App.  155)  347 

V.  Gregory  (26  Grat.  248)  391 

V.  Goggans  (Harp.  52)  793 

V  Gradv  (08  Wis.  215)  841 

V.  Gregory  (75  Mo.  121)  1180 

V.  Grove  (12  Mo.  51)  620 

V.  Guerant  (55  Mo.  372)  1192 
V.  Guild  (34  Me.  443)             359,  500,  1016 

V.  Handv  (16  Oh.  191)  248 

V.  Harrison  (2  Heisk.  2-30)  500 

■  V.  Hastings  (29  Vt.  240)  901 

V.  Henning  (10  W.  Va.  596)  720 

V.  His  Creditors  (59  Cal.  267)  336 

V.  Hurd  (7  How.  180)  1255 

V.  Hutchinson  (108  111.  662)  731 

V.  Hutchinson  (61  Mo.  83)  890 

V.  .lackson  (2  Edw.  Ch.  28)  235 

V.  James  (34  N.  W.  R.  -309)  43 

V.  Jewett  (40  N.  H.  513)     •  952,  1130 

V.  Johnson  (21  Ga.  380)  901 

V.  Kearnev  (2  Barb.  Clh.  533)  150,  1237 

r.  Kellv  (23  Miss.  167)  157 

V.  Keniiard  (38  Ala.  695)  1103 

V.  King  (22  Ala.  558)  1141 

V.  Kmnev  (.30  La.  An.  3.32)  1004 

V.  Kittridge  (21  Vt.  238)  117 

V.  Knnphel  (82  III.  -392)  1080 

■y.  Knowlton  (11  N.  H.  191)  445 

V.  Lambert  (30  Me.  137)  1129 


Page 

Smith  r.  Lampton  (8  Dana,  69)  90j 

V.  Lawrence  (11  Pai.  200)  740 

tj.  Lidiard  (3  K.  &  J.  2.J2)  899 

V.  Lorillard  (10  John.  3o8)  200 

v.  McCarty  (119  Mass.  519)  2:^8 

1-.  McChesnev  (15  N.J.  Eq.  359)  90 

v.  McConnell  (17  111.  135)  715 

r.  McCrary  (3  Irud.  Eq.  204)  722 

V.  McRitterick  (51  Iowa,  548)  1000 

V.  McLaughlin  (77  III.  590)  762 

V.  fiercer  (3  Pa.  L.  J.  529)  367,  635 

V.  Milles  (1  r.  R.  475)  409 

V.  Monks  (55  Mo.  100)  307 

V.  Mo. ire  (37  Ala.  327)  957 

V.  Moore  (25  Vt.  127)  1007,  1008 

V.  Munroe  (1  Ired.  345)  532 

I'.  M vers  (19  Mo.  4.33)  824 

I'.  Neilson  (13  Lea,  401)  494 

V.  Oliver  (11  Beav.  481)  910 

V.  Oliver  (Dudlev,  190)  1258 

V.  Park  (31  Minn.  70)  606,  714 

V.  Pattie  (81  Va.  654)  795,  843,  840 

V.  Pavne  (2  Bush,  583)  1242 

I'.  Phillips  (.54  Ala.  8.1  543 

V.  Porter  (35  Me.  287)  419 

V.  Presbyterian  Church  (26  N.  J.  Eq. 


132) 

Rice  (11  Mass.  507) 
Rix  (9  Vt.  240) 
Robertson  (24  Hun,  210) 
Seaton  (117  Pa.  St.  382) 
Sherman  (4  Cush.  408) 


893 
1230,  1245 
1131 
1240 
1045 
523,  624,  1194 


Smith  (13  Ala.  329)  257,  362,  650,  1125 
,  Smith  (1  Allen,  12J) 

Smith  (2  Bush,  .520) 
.  Smith  (12  Cal.  210) 

Smith  (5  Dana,  179) 

Smith  (1  Dr.  &  Sm.  384) 

Smith  (23  Ga.  21) 
.  Smith  (17  Grat.  268) 
,  Smith  (14  Grav,  532) 
.  Smith  (76  Ind.  230) 
.  Smith  (4  John.  Ch.  281) 
,  Smith  (5  .Jones  Eq.  305) 
.  Smith  (.59  Me.  214) 
.  Smith  (13  N.  J.  Eq.  104) 
.  Smith  (27  N.  J.  Eq.  445) 
.  Smith  (03  N.  C.  637) 
.  Smith  (5  Oh.  St.  32) 
.  Smith  (4  Paige,  271) 
.  Smith  (12  R.  I.  4-50) 
.  Smith  (24  S.  C.  304) 
.  Smith  (Str.  955) 
.  Smith  (1  Tex.  621) 
.  Smith  (5  Ves.  189) 
.  State  (5  Gill,  45) 
.  Tateham  (2  Exch.  205) 
.  Tebbitt  (L.  R.  1  P.  &  D.  398) 
.  Tiffany  (16  Hun.  .552) 
.  Union  Bank  (5  Pet.  518) 
'.  United  States  (2  Wall.  219) 
.  Uzzell  (61  Tex.  220) 
.  Van  Ostrand  (64  N.  Y.  278) 


975 
145 

200 

202 

790 

966,  980 

808 

.500,  1010 

171,  1229 

707 

940 

1210 

1071 

1036 

82 

223 

8.»3 

260 

897 

123 

223,  518,  519 

234 

773 

794 

909 

307 

374 

94 

210 

949,  998, 

1000 

Wait  (4  Barb.  28)  89 

Watkins  (8  Humph.  331)  789 

Wert  (64  Ala.  34)  1059,  1060 

Whiting  (9  Mass.  334)  734 

Wilmington  Co.  (83  111.  498)    686,  087 
Wingo  (1  Rice.  287)  535 

Woodworth  (4  Dill.  584)  227 


exx 


TABLE   OF    CASES. 


Piige 

Smiili  1'.  Wvckoff  (11  Paiye,  49)  110;i 

r.  Vouiig  (5  Gill,  1!»7)  527 

Sinitlui  r.  Kloiinu.v  (47  Ala.  345)  10:i7 

Smitlior  V.  Siiiithfr  ('J  Bush,  2:i0)  '2li!) 

Siiiitliers  v.  Hooper  (23  Md.  273)  1137 

Smock  v.  Siiioi'k  (11  N.  J.  Kq.  150)  8'.* 

Siiiyley  0.  Keese  (53  Ala.  8'J)  1149 

bueacl  v.  Coleman  (7  Grat.  300)  795 

Siiedecor  v.  l-'i-eemau  (71  Ala.  140)  201 

Suedeker  v.  Ailea  (2  N.  J.  L.  35)  470 

Sneed  v.  Ewiug  (5  J.  J.  Marsh.  400)  494 

hiielgrove  v.  Siielgrove  (4  Des.  274)  1215 

Siiell  V.  Eewell  (04  Miss.  055)  833 

V.  Snell  (123  111.  403)  207 

Snider  v.  Coleman  (72  'Slo.  508)  1081 

•r.  Crov  (2  John.  22,")  020 

V.  Newsoii  (24  Ga.  139)  901 

V.  Snider  (3  W.  Va   200)  1080 

Snively  v.  Stover  (78  Pa.  St.  484)       873,  878 

Snodgrass's  Appeal  (90  Pa.  St.  420)  1197 

Siiodgrass  v.  Andrews  (30  Miss.  472)  000 

Snook  V.  Snook  (43  N.  J.  Kq.  132)  209 

Snow  r.  Benton  (28  111.  300)  39 

V.  Calluni  (1  Des.  542)  1108,  1170 

V.  I'olev  (119  Mass.  102)  972 

V.  Perkins  (00  N.  H.  493)  603,  604 

Snowhill  V.  SnowhJll  (2  N.  J.  Eq.  30)         040 

•(,•.  Snowhill  (23  N.  ,1.  L.  447)  87 

Snvder's  Appeal  (30  Pa.  St,  100)  323,  324,  340 

Snvder  v.  Ball  (17  Pa.  St.  54)  03 

'  V.  Snvder  (90  N.  Y.  88) 
Sohjer  v.  Burr  (127  Mass.  221)  354 

V.  l-.ldredge  (103  Mass.  345)  038 

V.  Massachusetts   Hospital  (3   Ciish. 
483)  930 

Soldnii  V.  Hvams  (15  La.  An.  551)     553,    648 
Solliday  v.  Bissey  (12  Pa.  St.  347)  1108 

Solonian  w   Wixon,  27  Conn.  520)  512 

Solomons  v.  Kursheedt  (3  Dem.  307)         1134 
Soltan  V.  Soltan  (93  Mo.  307)  277 

Soniers's  Estate  (14  Phila.201)  190 

Scmierset,  Goods  of  (L.  K.  1  P  &  D.  350)    400 
Sontag  V.  Schmisseur  (70  111.  541)  203 

Sorin  V.  dinger  (12  Ind.  29)  708,  1153 

Sorrell  v.  Ham  (9  Ga.  55)  622,  712 

Sorrelle  ».  Sorrelle  (5  Ala.  245)  970 

Sorrels  v.  Trantham  (48  Ark.  380)    844,  1153, 

1183 
Sossman  v.  Powell  (21  Tex.  604)  198,  214 

Soubiran  v.  Rivollet  (4  La.  An.  328)  436 

Sonhegan    Bank  v.  Wallace  (00   N.   H. 

354)  854 

South  V.  Carr  (7  T.  B.  Mon.  419)  794 

V.  Hov  (3  T.  B.  Mon.  88)  1213 

Southall  V.  Tavlor  (14  Grat.  209)         677,  698 

Southerland  «;.Southerland  (5  Bu3h,  .591)  118, 

123,  608 

Southgate  v.  Annan  (31  Md.  113)  158 

Southmead,  Goods  of  (3  Curt.  28)        400,  531 

South  Western  Railroad  «".  Paulk  (24  Ga. 

350)  308 

V.  Thomason  (40  Ga.  408)  1246 

Southwick  V.  IMonell  (121  Mass.  520)        1024 

Southworth  v,  Adams  (11  Biss.  250)  !i8 

Soutter's  Estate  (105  N.  Y.  514)  1129 

Soverhill  v.  Suvdam  (.59  N.  Y.  140)   654,  1141 

Soward  v.  Soward  (1  Duv.  120)  62 

Sowards  v,  Pritohett  (37  III.  517)  1052 

Sowell  V.  Sowell  (40  Ala.  243)  469,  497 

V,  Sowell  (41  Ala.  359)  579 

Sowers  v.  Cyreaius  (39  Ob.  St.  29)  922 


Sowles,  In  re  (57  Vt.  384)  1198 

Sove  V.  Maverick  (18  Tex.  100)  1043 

Spackman  v.  Timbrell  (8  Sim.  2.53)  659,  1090 
Spain  V.  Adams  (3  I'enn.  Ch.  319)  260 

Spangler's  Estate  (9  VV.  iSc  G.  135)  1007 

Spanglcr  v.  Stanler  (1  Md.  Ch.  36)  231 

V.  York  Co.  (13  Pa.  St.  322)  1002 

Sparhawk  v.  Buell  (9  Vt.  41)     738,  8.57,  1011, 
1013,  1129,  1240,  1254 
Sparks  v.  White  (7  Humph.  80)  303,  650 

Sparrow's  Succession  (39  La.  An.  690)       579, 

055,  089 
Spaulding's  Appeal  (-33  N.  H.  479)  1202 

Spaulding  v.  Gibbons  (5  Hedf.  316)  08 

V.  Suss  (4  Mo.  App.  541)       781,  804,  800 
V.  Waketield  (53  Vt.  000)  710 

Speaknian's  Appeal  (71  Pa.  Si.  25)  061,  600 
Spear  v.  Tinkhani  (2  Barb.  Ch.211)  1138 

Spears's  Succession  (28  La.  An.  804)  1031 
Speck  V.  Wohlien  (22  Mo.  310)  1060 

Speckles  «.  Public  Administrator  (1  Dem. 

475)  400 

Speed  V.  Kellv  (59  Miss.  47)        379,  440,  442 

V.  Nelson  (8  B.  Mon.  499)  1130 

Speelmari  r.  Culbertson  (15  Ind.  441)  693 

Speer  v.  Miller  (37  N.  J.  )  (|.  492)  153 

V.  Kichmond  (3  Mo.  App.  5'i2)  547 

V.  Speer  (07  Ga.  748)  207,  208 

Speidel's  Appeal  (107  Pa.  St.  18)         175,  184 

Speidel  v.  Schlosser  (13  W.  \h.  080)  210 

Speiice  V.  Robins  (6  G.  &  .].  507)  941 

Spencer,  Ex  parte  (95  N.  C.  271)  12.  6 

In  re  (12  All.  U.  124)  989,  994,  1005 

V.  Hank  of  the  State  (Bai.  Eq.  408)     731 

r.  Boardman  (118  111.  553)  831 

r.  Cahoon  (4  Dev.  225)  546,  568 

V.  Dennis  (8  Gill,  314)  957 

V.  Higgins  (22  Conn.  521)  893 

V.  Moore  (4  Call,  423)  469 

V.  Sheehan  (19  Minn.  338)  1031 

V.  Strait  (40  Hun,  403)  1140,  1147 

V.  Trafford  (42  Md.  1)  836 

Sperber  v.  Balster  (06  Ga.  317)  60 

Sperrv's  Estate  (1  Ashm.  347)  658 

Speverer  v.  Bennett  (79  Pa.  St.  445)  836 

Spier's  Appeal  (26  Pa.  St.  233)  184 

Spinning's  Will  (Tuck.  78)  535 

Spinning  r.  Spinning  (43  N.  J.  Eq.  215)    256, 

258 
Spire  V.  Lovell  (17  111.  App.  559)  702,  1144 
Sjionsler's  Appeal  (107  Pa.  St.  95)  904,  971 
Si)Oor  V.  Wells  (3  Barb.  Ch.  199)  274 

Spoors  V.  Coen  (44  Oh.  St.  497)  6-32, 1044 

Spraddling  v.  Pipkin  (15  Mo.  118)      300,  371, 

375,  1182 
Spragins  v.  Tavlor  (48  Ala.  520)  1030 

Sprague  v.  West  (127  Mass  471)  354,  1034 
Spraker  v.  Van  Alstvne  (18  Wend.  200)  1104 
Spratt  V.  Baldwin  (33  Miss.  581)  1165 

Spravberrv  v.  Culberson  (32  Ga.  299)  440 
Sjireiikle's  Appeal  (15  Atl.  R.  773)  979 

Spring  r.  Parkman  (12  Me.  127)  493 

Springer's  Appenl  (29  Pa.  St.  208)  1213,1238 
Appeal  (111  Pa.  St.  274)  1098 

Springs  v.  Irwin  (0  Ired.  27)  512,  572 

Springsteen  v.  Samson  (32  N.  Y.  703)  764 
Sprinkle  r.  Hutchinson  (66  N.  C.  450)  1123 
Sprott  V.  Baldwin  (34  Miss.  .327)  1173 

Sproul's  Appeal  (105  Pa.  St.  4-38)  1102,  1237 
Sproull  V.  Seav  (74  Ga.  676)  1064 

Spruill  V.  Cannon  (2  Dev,  &  B.  Eq.  400)     1168 


TABLE   OF    CASES. 


CXXl 


Spun-  V.  Trimble  (1  A.  K.  Marsh.  278)       444 
S(iuier  v.  Mavor  (2  Eq.  Cas.  Abr.  430)       UOL 
v.  Squief  (30  N.  J.  Eq.  G27)  1171 

Stackable  v.  Stackpole  (32  N.  \V.  R.  808)  834 
Stackhouse  v.  Norton  (15  N.J.  Eq.  202)  34,  40 
Stacv  V.  Thrasher  (6  How.  44)  3G0,  301,  752 
Stag  «;.  Punter  (3  Atk.  110)  703 

Stagg  V.  Green  (47  Mo.  500)  384,  410 

V.  Jackson  (2  Barb.  Ch.  86)  1060 

V.  Jackson  (1  N.  Y.  200)  1141 

S-aggs  V.  Ferguson  (4  Heisk.  690)  020 

8tahl  V.  Brown  (72  Iowa.  720)  385 

t'.  Stahl  (114  111.  375)  204,228 

Stahlschmidt  v.  Lett  (1  Sm.  &  Giff.  415)  788 
Staiggt'.  .\tkinson  (144  Mass.  564)  361 

IStair  V.  York  Bank  (55  Pa.  St.  364)  744 

Stair  lev  v.  Itabe  (McNull.  Eq.  22)  580 

Stairs  V.  Peaslee  (18  How.  521)  6 TO 

Stallings  V.  Foreman  (2  Hill  Cli.401)  701,  702 
r.  Ivev  (4;»  Ga.  274)  1072 

Stallwortirt'.  Stalhvorth  (29  Ala.  76)  153 

S'linibaiigh  v.  Smith  (23  Oh.  St.  584)  804 

Stamm  v.  Stamm  (11  Mo.  App.  598)  200,  204 
Stamper  c.  Garnett  (31  Grat.  550)  118  J 

Stamjis  {•.  Bell  (2  Baxt.  170)  857 

Stanbrough's    Succession    (37    La.    An. 

275)  1083 

Stancil  r.  Kenan  (35  Ga.  102)  468 

Standifer  v.  Hubbard  (39  Tex.  417)  847 

Stanlev  V.  Hemes  (1  Hagg.  221)  402 

f.  "Morse  (26  lovs'a,  454)  493 

V.  Noble  (59  Iowa.  666)  1089 

V.  Potter  (2  Uox  Ch.  180)  973,  980 

V.  Vogel  (9  Mo.  App.  98)  615,  622 

Stannard  v.  Barnum  (51  Md.  440)  8.)2 

V.  Case  (40  Oh.  St.  211)  153 

Stanton  v.  Kvan  (41  Mo.  510)  830 

V.  VVetherwax  (16  Barb.  259)  34 

Stan  wood  v   Owen  (14  Grav,  195)  283 

Staples's  Appeal  (52  Conn.  421)  712,  762, 

1144,  1243 

Staples  V.  Staples  (24  Grat.  225)  700,  702, 1083 

V.  Wellnigton  (58  Me.  453)  39 

Staring  v.  Bowen  (6  Barb.  109)  472 

Stark  V.  Hunton  (1  N.  J.  Eq.  216)  271 

v.  Hunton  (3  N.  J.  Eq.  300)  677 

V.  Parker  (56  N.  H.  481)  495 

V.  Smilev  (25  Me.  201)  952 

V.  Stark'(55  Pa.  St.  62)  144 

Starke  v.  Keenan  (5  Ala.  590)  750 

Starkey  v.  Hammer  (1  Baxt.  438)  1036 

Starkweather  v.  American  Bible  Soc.  (72 

111.  50)  913,  931 

Starr  v.  Brewer  (58  Vt.  24)  1067 

V.  Case  (59  Iowa,  491)  284 

V.  McEwan  (09  Me.  334)  1000 

State  ?;.  Allen  (92  :Mo   20)  1193 

V.  Ames  (23  L;i.  .\n.  09)  309 

V.  Bank  of  Maryland  (6  G.  &  J.  205)  773 
V.  Belin  (5  Harf.  400)  738 

V.  Berning  (74  Mo.  87)  549,  1163 

V.  Berning  (6  Mo.  .\pp.  105)        549,  1242 
V.  Bidlingmaier  (26  Mo.  483)       525,  584, 

821 
V.  Blackwell  (20  Mo.  97)  1247 

t?.  Boring  (15  Oh.  507)  553 

V.  Bowen  (45  Miss.  347)  810 

V.  Brown  (6-1  Md.  97)  9!t9 

V.  Brutch  (12  Ind   381)  1122,  1124 

V.  Campbell  (10  Mo.  324)  747 

V.  Central  Pac.  R.  R.  Co.  (lONev.47)  337 


Pape 
State  V.  Cheston  (51  Md.  352)  391,  1179,  12;;2 
V.  Chrisman  (2  Ind.  126)  559 

V.  Clarke  (3  Harr.  Del.  557)  25 

V.  Claudius  (3  Mo.  Apji.  561)  815 

V.  Coffey  (5  Mo.  Ap|i.  577)  1182 

r.  Collins  (16  Ark.  32)  8i)J 

V.  Connowav  (2  Hou^t.  206)  823 

V.  Conover  (9  N.  J.  L.  338)  1021,  1040 
V.  Craddock  (7  Ilarr.  &  John.  40)  401 
V.  Crosslev  (09  Ind.  203)  978 

V.  Dickson  (38  Ga.  171)  773 

ij.  Dillev  (64Md.  314)  1123 

V.  Donaldson  (28  Mo.  App.  190)  772 

V.  Donegan  (94  iMo.  66)  829 

V.  Drurv  (36  Mo.  281)  548 

V.  Elliot  (11  N.  H.  540)  606 

V.  Engelhard  (70  N.  C.  377)  710 

■c.  Farmer  (54  Mo.  439)  394,  559,  748,  8(J6 
V.  Fields  (Peck,  140) 
V.  Fields  (53  Mo.  474) 
V.  Find  ley  (10  Oh.  51) 
V.  Ful;on  (35  Mo.  323) 
V.  Green  (65  Mo.  528) 
r.  Gregory  (88  Ind.  110) 
V.  Griffith  (2  Del.  Ch.  3!l2) 
V.  Grigsbv  (IJ2  \lo.  419) 
V.  Hailett  (8  Ala.  15i)) 
V.  Hanner  (64  N.  C.  668) 
V.  Harris  (2  Bailey,  598) 
V.  Hart  (57  Md.2i4) 
V.  Heinrichs  i82  Mo.  542) 
V.  Hirons(l  Hoiist.  252) 
V.  Huether  (4  Mo.  App  575) 
V.  .lohnson  (7  Blackf.  529) 
V.  Jones  (89  Mo.  470) 
».  Joyce  (48  Ind.  310) 
V.  Judge  (17  La.  An.  189) 
V.  Knox  (10  .41a.  608) 
V.  Leckie(14  La.  An.  641) 
V.  Lewellyn  (25  Tex.  797) 
V.  McAleer  (5  Ired.  L.  632) 
V.  McGlynn  (20  Cal.  233) 


124 


772, 


336 
548 
552 
748 
3i)5 
677 
921 

1248 
443 
6H9 
773 
749 
748,  1 183 
715 
548 
707 

1125 

880 

465.  502 

lliJl 

437 

434,  1264 

1229 
468.  4^17 


V.  Matson  (44  .Mo.  305)        749,  1182,  1248 

V.  Matthews  (10  Oh.  St.  431)  741 

V.  Maulsbv  (53  Mo.  500)  866 

V.  Maxwell  (64  N.  C.  313)  8  i2 

V.  Meagher  (44  Mo.  .-556)  11-58 

V.  Medary  (17  Oh.  5.54)  552 

V.  Megown  (89  Mo.  156)  1193 

V.  Jlenard  (8  Mo.  286)  1247 

V.  ileyer  (63  Ind.  33)  ,307 

V.  Miller  (18  Mo.  App.  41)  1262 

V.  Mitchell  (3  Brev.  520)  1193 

V.  Moore  (18  Mo.  App.  406)  432 

V.  Morton  (18  Mo.  53)  747 

V.  Newlin  (69  Ind.  108)  41 

V.  Osborn  (71  Mo.  86)  6.50 

V.  Pace  (9  Rich.  355)  464 
i\  Parish  Court  (30  La.  An.  183)         1124 

V.  Parker  (9  N.  J.  L.  242)  346 

V.  Parrish  (4  Himiph.  285)  1119 

f.  Paul  (21  Mo.  51)  815 

V.  Piatt  (4  Harr.  154)  1163 

V.  Pohl  (30  Mo.  Ai.p.  321)  1262,  12(i6 

V.  Porter  (9  Ind.  342)  748 

V.  Preble  (18  Nev.  251)  23 

V.  Price  (15  Mo.  375)  .553 

V.  Price  (21  Mo.  434)  566 
V.  Probate  Court  (33  Minn.  94)    331,  1062 

r.  Ramsey  Probate  Court  (25  Minn. 

22)  854,  1045 


cxxu 


TABLE   OF   CASES. 


State  V.  KeeJer  (5  Ntb.  203) 
V.  Keij^ait  (1  Gill,  1) 
V.  Kuiiiliiiidi  (•;!  Mo.  !)5) 
V.  Kobcrt.^oii  (5  lliiiT.  201) 
V.  Kobiiisciii  (1)7  Md.  480) 
V.  Koepur  (82  Mo.  57) 
V.  lioepei-  (0  Mo.  Aii|).  21) 
V.  Kogers  (2  11.  &  M^l.  i'J8) 
V.  Rogers  (1  Houst.  uOO) 
i;.  Koth  (47  Ark.  222) 
V.  KuckLT  (5!)  Mo.  24) 
V.  Scott  (1  liai.  2^4) 
V.  Smit  (20  Mo.  App.  50) 
V.  Smith  (70  Cal.  lo^i) 


Pago 
308 
]()15 
525,  821 
G3'J,  041 
99a 
1125 
1125 
773 
503 
984,  1230 
31)5 
328 
611 
23,  310 
V.  Smith  (52  Comi.  557)  061,  749,  883,  948 
V.  Smith  (16  Lea,  662)  950 

V.  Stafford  (73  Mo.  658)  863 

V.  Taygart  (88  Iiid.  269)  1251 

V.  Thuniton  (56  Mo.  325)  749,  1182 

V.  Uelaud  (30  Minn.  277)  271,  351 

V.  \\'atson  (2  Speeis,  97)  503 

V.  Watts  (23  Ark.  304)  390 

V.  We.st  (2  Harr.  151)  914 

V.  White  (7  Ired.  L.  116)  4.50 

V.  Williams  (9  Gill,  172)  588,  1204 

V.  Wilson  (51  Ind.  96)  1125 

V.  Wiltbank  (2  Harr.  18)  914 

V.  Woltt  (10  Mo.  App.  95)  549 

r.  Woods  (36  Mo.  73)  299 

1?.  Wright  (4  H.  &  J.  148)  743 

V.  Wvani  (67  Ind.  2  ,)  558.  5.59 

V.  WVgall  (51  Tex.  621)  1251 

v.  Yoimts  (89  L.d.  313)  1058 

State  Bank  v.  Hinton  (21  Oh.  St.  5fi9)         237 
V  Tiitt  (44  Mo.  368)  775,  781 

V.  Walker  (14  Ark.  234)  826,  842 

f.  Williams  (6  Ark.  156)  1186 

State  Nalioiiai  Bank  v.  Evans  (32  La.  An. 

464)  499 

Staunton  v.  Parker  (19  Hun,  .55)  513 

Stayner's  Case  (33  Oh.  St.  431)  1125 

Sleacv  V-  Hice  (27  I'a.  St.  75)  817 

Steadnian  v.  Powell  (1  Add.  58)  20 

Stearns  v.  Barnham  (5  Me.  261)  368 

V.  Brown  (1  Pick.  530)  11.37 

V.  Fiske  (18  Pick.  24)  521,  524 

V.  Stearns  (1  Pick.  157)  1217 

V.  Stearns  (30  Vt.  213)  827 

V.  Swift  (8  Pick.  532)  251 

v.  Wrinht  (51  N.  H.  600)  441 

Stebbins  r  '  Field  (43  Mich.  333)  1057 

V.  Lathrop(4  Pick.  33)  464,  512 

V.  Palmer  (1  Pick.  71)  523,  624 

Steed  I'.  Cruise  (70  Ga.  168)  387 

Steele  v.  Atkinson  (14  S.  C.  154)  746 

V.  Frierson  (85  Tenu.  4.30)        1218,  1221, 

1222 

V.  Graves  (68  Ala.  17)  5.50 

V.  Lineberger  (.59  Pa.  St.  308)  1029 

V.  Morrison  (4  Dana,  617)  1187 

V.  Price  (5  B.  Mon.  58)  98,  484 

V.  Steele  (64  Ala.  438)  270,  272,  1090 

V.  Steele  (89  111.  51)  1051 

V.  Tutwiler  (68  Ala.  107)  554 

Steen  v.  Bennett  (24  Vt.  302)  395 

V.  Steen  (25  Miss.  513)      1123,  1127,  12-30 

Steere  v.  Wood  (15  Pt.  I.  199)  1228 

Steffv's  Appeal  (76  Pa.  St.  94)  731 

Steijall  V.  Stegall  (2  Rrock.  2.56)  227 

Steger  e.  Bush  (1  Sm.  &  M.  Ch.  172)  697 

Steib  V.  Whitehead  (111  HI.  247)  956 


Page 

Stein  I'.  Burden  (.30  Ala.  270)  1133 

V.  Huesman  (38  N.  .1.  Kq.  405)  1167 

Steinmanu  v.  Sauuderson  (14  S.&  li.  357)  740 

Stell's  Appeal  (10  I'a.  St.  149)  737 

Stent  1".  Kobiiison  (12  Ves.  461)  1008 

Stephens's  Appeal  (56  Pa.  St.  409)  1147 

Stephens  v.  Barnett  (7  Dana,  257)       415,  422 

V.  Beal  (4  Ga.  319)  039 

V.  Cotterell  (99  Pa.  St.  188)  832 

V.  Crawford  (3  Ga.  499)  553 

i;.  Gibbes  (14  Fla.  331)  270 

V.  Harris  (6  Ired.  Fq.  57)  782 

V.  Tavlor  (02  Ala.269)  55;i 

V.  Van  Buren  (1  Paige,  479)  1010 

V.  Venables  (30  Beav.  625)  1015 

Stephenson  v.  Axson  (Bai.  Eq.  274)  995, 

996,  1005,  1010 

V.  Donahue  (40  Oh.  St.  184)  610 

V.  Heathcote  (1  Eden,  38)  873 

V.  King  (81  Kv.  425)  118,  119,  123 

V.  Ontario  Asvlum  (27  Hun,  380)         943 

t;.  Short  (92  N   Y.  433)  911 

V.  Stephenson  (3  Hayw.  123)  1145 

V.  Stephenson  (4  .Jones,  472)  524 

V.  Yandel  (5  Hayw.  261)  1 187 

Sterling  v.  Sims  (72  Ga.  51)  039 

Sterrett's  Appeal  (2  Pa.  419)     737,  1146   1188 

Stetson  r.  Moulton  (140  Mass.  597)  1243 

Steuart  v.  Carr  (0  (iill,  430)  805,  841 

Stevens  v.  Fisher  (144  Ma.^s.  114)  907 

V.  Gavlord  (11  Mass  256)     364,  365,  375, 

054 
V.  Gregg  (10  G.  &  J.  143)  1095 

V.  Hope  (52  Mich.  65)  100 

V.  McNaniara  (36  Me.  170)  444 

r.  Sliippen  (28  N.  .J.  Eq  487)  111 

v.  Smith  (4  J.  J.  Marsh.  64)  2-34 

?;.  Stevens  (3  Dana,  371)  262 

V.  Stevens  (50  Iowa,  491)  20ii 

V.  Stevens  (5  Th.  &  C.  87)  124 

V.  Vancleve  (4  Wash.  C  C   262)     32,  42, 
05,  06,  490 
Stevenson's  Appeal  (.32  Pa.  St.  318)  1131 

Stevenson,  In  re  (72  Cal.  164)  532 

V.  Martin  (11  Bush,  485)  1216, 1218. 1221 
V.  Polk  (71  Iowa,  278)  595,  731 

V.  Schriver  (9  G.  &  J.  324)  1193 

V.  Superior  Court  (62  Cal.  GO)  451 

V.  Wilcox  (16  S.  C.  432)  401 

Steward  v.  Hinkel  (72  Cal.  187)  812 

Stewart's  Appeal  (56  Me.  300)  5i»7 

Appeal  (56  Pa.  St  241)  1244 

Appeal  (110  Pa.  St.  410)        669,  702,  710 
Stewart  v.  Barclav  (2  Bush,  550)         276,  277 
y.  Barrow  (7  "Bush,  ,368)  955 

V.  Blease  (4  S.  C   .37)  200 

V.  Bradv  (3  Bush,  023)  955 

V.  Cave"(l  Mo.  752)  5(i0 

V.  Chambers  (2  Sandf.  Ch.  382)  988 

V.  Conner  (9  Ala.  803)  737 

V.  Elliott  (2  Mackev,  .307)  31,  46 

«.  Glenn  (3  Heisk   581)  1236 

v.  Glenn  (58  Mo.  481)  681 

V.  Harriman  (56  N.  H.  25)       72,  76,  4(i8. 

499 
V.  Kearnev  (6  Watts,  453)  631 

V.  Lispenard  (26  Wend.  255)  32 

r.  Pattison  (8  Gill.  46)  1213 

•    V.  Pearson  (4  S.  C.  46)  262 

r.  Pettus  (10  Mo.  755)  490 

V.  Phenice  (65  Iowa,  475)  748 


TABLE   OF    CASES. 


CXXUl 


Stewart  v.  Richev  (17  N.  J.  L.  164)  G4;i 

V.  Siiiilfv  (ih  Ark.  :}7-")         0;JG,  712,  714 

V.  Stewart  (5  (Joiiii.  ■ill)  247 

V.  Stewart  (7  John.  Cli.  229)  042 

V.  Stewart  (3  J.  J.  Marsh.  48)  245 

V.  Stewart  (L.  R.  15  Gh.  D.  53t))  1215, 

1222 

V.  Stewart  (13  T.a   An.  3!)8)  I'.Mi 

Sticknev  v.  Davis  (17  Pick.  Kill)  331,  075 

V.  Hammond  (138  Mass.  110)  05 

Sticknoth's  Estate  (7  Nev.233)  4:i9 

Sfici"er  v.  Evans  (04  Iowa.  91)  241 

Stiles  v.  Smith  (55  Mo.  303)         829,  84i,  843 

Stiller  y.Fol-er  (14  Oh.  610)  204 

Stillnian  v.  Younj;  (16  111.  318)  1«69 

Stillwell  V.  Doii£?hty  (3  Bradf.  359)  637 

Stilwell  y   Carpenter  (59  N.  Y.  414)  340 

V.  Knapper  (09  Ind.  558)  964 

V.  Melrose  (15  Hun,  376)  115! 

Stimson  V.  Vroman  (99  N.  Y.  74)  874,  878 

Stiiiehtield  v.  Emerson  (52  Me.  465)  444 

Stinson  v.  Stinson  (38  Me.  593)  636 

Stirling:  V.  Stirlint;  (64  Md.  138)  50 

V.  Winter  (80  Mo-  141)  757.  7. '5 

Stiver's  Appeal  (.56  Pa.  St.  9)  l()(i2 

Stiver  t'.  Stiver  (8  Oh.  217)  1141 

Stockbridge.  Petitioner  (145  Mass.  517)      939 

Stockton's  Appeal  (64  Pa.  St.  58)  339 

Stockton  i:  Wilson  (3  Pa.  129)  421 

Stoddard  r.  (Jalcompt  (41  Iowa,  329)  271 

V.  Maulthrop  (H  Conn.  502)  854 

Stoeckman  v.  Terre  Haute  R.  R.  (15  Mo. 

App.  503)  fi29 

Stoever  v.  Ludwiff  (4  S.  &  R.  201)  571 

Stokelv's  Estate  (19  Pa.  St.  476)  375 

Stokes"  i-.  Dale  (1  Dem.  260)  348 

V.  McAllister  (2  Mo.  163)  257 

V.  Paviie  (58  Miss.  614)  732 

V.  Porter  (Dver,  166  b)  415 

V.  Sticknev  (96  N.  Y.  323)  626 

V.  Tillv  (9"N.  J.  L.  130)  872 

V.  Van  Wvck  (83  Va.  724)  872,  900 

Stoltz's  Succession  (28  La.  An.  175)  1048 

Stone's  Succession  (31  La.  An.  311)  678 

Stone  V.  Brown  (16  Tex.  425)  465 

V.  Clarke  (40  III.  411)  849 

V.  Cook  (79  111.  424)  837 

t>.  Damon  (12  Mass.  487)  38 

V.  Gazzam(46  Ala.269)  609 

V.  Green  (30  Ga.  340)  468 

■y.  Hallev  (1  Dana,  197)  1213 

V.  Huxford  (8  Blackf.  452)  464 

V.  Kaufman  (25  Ark.  186)  8)9 

V.  Massev  (2  Yeates,  263)  942 

v.  Morgan  (10  Pai.  615)  1127 

V.  Scripture  (4  Lans.  186)  305 

V.  Stillwell  (23  Ark.  444)  1136 

V.  Sione  (18  Mo    389)  127,  248 

V.  Todd  (49  N.  .1.  L.  274)  59,  1268 

V.  Union  Bank  (13  R.  I.  25)  737 

V.  Wilson  (4  :McCord,  203)  553 

V.  Wood  (16  III.  177)  1029 

Stoner  v.  Zimmerman  (21  Pa.  St.  394)      1142 

Stonestreet  i'.  Dovle  (75  Va.  356)  944 

Stong  V.  Wilkson  (14  Mo.  116)  1131, 1137 

Storer's  Will  (28  Minn.  9)  48,  490 

Storer  v.  Hinklv  (1  Root,  182)  1152 

V.  WheatleV  (1  Pa.  St.  506)  517,  904 

Storev's  Appeal  (83  Pa   St.  89)  1217,  1218 

Will  (120  111.  244)     469,  1193,  1202.  1208 

Will  (20  111.  App.  183)  34,  42,  469 


Storm,  Matter  of  (28  Hun,  499)  737 

Storms  V.  (,)uackeiil)ush  (34  X..J.  Eq.  201)  737 

Storrs  f.  Whitnev  (54  Conn.  342;  HM,  921,  923 

Stose  V.  Penple  ('l5  111.  600)  749 

Stott's  Estate  (Mvr.  168)  1148 

Stout  V.  Baker  (32  Kan.  113)  287 

V.  Hart  (7  N.. I.  L.  414)  973 

V.  Stout  (15  Atl.  R   843)  1007 

Sfoutenbmf^h  r.  Ho])kins  (43  N.   J.  Eq. 

577:  s.  c.  12  Atl.  R.  689)  31,  46 

V.  Moore  (37  N    .J.  Eq.  63)  719 

Stover  V.  Kendall  (1  Coldw.  557)  86 

Stow  r.  Kimball  (28  III.  93)  1034,  10.59 

V.  Stow  (1  Redf.  305)  474,  475 

V.  Tifft  (15  John.  458)  238 

Stowe  r.  Steele  (114  111.  382)  246.  274 

Stowell  V.  Hastings  (59  Vt.  494)  948,  949 

Straat  v.  O'Neil  (84  Mo.  68)  128 

Stracev,  Goods  of  (Dea.  &  Sw.  6)  57 

Stradlev  r.  King  (84  N.  C  635)       1047,  1062 

Straiii;e  v.  Harris    3  Bro.  C.  C  365)  799 

Stratton's  Estate  (46  Md.  551 )  1125.  1167 

Stratton  v.  McCandliss  (32  Kan.  512j  1.^5,  326 

Straub  v.  Dimm  (27  Pa  St.  36)  309 

Strawn  v.  Strawn  (53  111.  263)      167.  170,  182 

Street,  Ex  parte  (1  Bland  Ch.  532,  n.)       1039 

V.  Saunders  (27  Ark.  554)  230 

Streeter  v.  Baton  (7  Mich.  341)  712,  713 

Stretch  V.  Pynn  (1  Lee,  30)  519 

Strieker  v.  Oldenburgh  (39  Iowa,  653)  80 

Strickland  r.  Aldrich  (9  Ves.  516)  910 

V.  Hudson  (55  Miss.  235)  836 

V.  Strickland  (10  Sim.  374)  1094 

v.  Wvnn  (51  Ga.  600)  830 

Stringer's  Estate  (L.  R.  6  Ch.  Div.  1)         948 

Strobel,  Ex  parte  (2  S.  C  309)  216 

Strodes  i'.  Patton  (1  Brock.  228)         685,  1043 

Strong  r.  Bass  (.35  Pa.  St.  333)  1236 

V.  Clem  (12  Ind.  37)  243,  255 

V.  Smith  (1  Met.  Mass.  476)  641 

V.  Strong  (8  Conn.  408)  346 

V.  Strong  (3  Redf.  477)  1131 

V.  Williams  (12  Mass.  391)  975 

Strother  v.  Hull  (23  Grat.  6.52)  1045 

v.  Mitchell  (80  Va.  149)  783,  1216 

Stronghill  v.  Anstev  (1   DeG.  M.  &  G. 

635)  '  "32 

Strouse  V.  Drennan  (41  Mo.  ?89)  1060 

Strvker  v.  Vaiiderbilt  (27  N.  J.  L.  68)     10(i7 
Stuart  V.  Allen  (16  Cal.  473)  1055 

v.  Kissam  (2  Barb.  493)  1118 

r.  Walker  (72  Me.  145)  729,  949 

Stubbletield   v.  McRaren  (5   Sm.  &  ^I. 

130)  .  589,  749 

Stubbs  V.  Houston  (33  Ala.  555)  31,  36 

Stiickey  i'.  Mathes  (24  Hun,  461)  224 

Studebaker  v.  Montgomery  (74  Mo.  101)    757 
Studlev  V.  Josselvn  (5  Allen,  118)  1033 

Stukes  «.  Collins' (4  Des.  207)  697 

Stulz  V.  SchaefHe  (18  Eng.  L.  &  E.  576)       46 
Sturdivant  v.  Davis  (9  Ired.  L.  365)  417 

Sturdy  V.  Jacoway  (19  Ark.  499)      329,  10.58, 

10-.9 
Sturges  V.  Tufts  (R.  M.  Charlt.  17)  522 

Stur'gis  V.  Paine  (146  Mass.  354)  877 

Sturtevant  v.  Sturtevant  (4  Allen,  122)       820 
V.  Tallman  (27  Me.  78)  1122 

Stuttmeister's  Estate  (17  Pac.  R.  223)        1148 
Stuvvesant  r.  Hall  (2  Barb.  Ch    151)  734 

St.  Andrae  i\  Rachal  (7  La.  An.  69)  1138 

St.  Clair  v.  Morris  (9  Ohio,  15)  1075 


CXXIV 


TABLE   OF   CASES. 


St.  .Tames  Church  v.  Walker  (1  Del.  Cli. 

284)  489,  494 

St.  .lohirs  Succession  (6  La.  An.  192)        308 
St.  Jolm  V.  McKee  (2  Uem.  2-30)  114G 

St.  .)<ilm  Assoc.  V.   Buchly  (5  Mackev, 

40IJ)  ■     87.3 

St.  Jurjo  r.  Diinscomb  (2  Brndf.  105)  374 

St.  Leber's  Will  (34  (  <.ini.  334)  49 

St.  Marv's  Church  D.  Wallace  (10  N.  J.  L. 

311     '  1-208 

St.  Train's  Estate  (1  Mo.  App  294)  1213,  1214 
Siiarez,  Matter  of  (3  Dem.  104)  584 

Sublett  i:  Nelson  (38  Mo.  48;)  3.J9 

Succession  of. For  ca.ses  uni^er  "  Suc- 
cession of,"  see  names  of  the  parties. 
Sujrden  v.  St.  Leonards  (L.  K.  1  Pr.  D. 

154)  483 

Sugo-ett  V  Kitchell  (0  Yerg.  425)        473,  488 

Suggitt's  Trust  (L.  K.  3  Ch.  App.  215)      1015 

Suggs  V.  Sapp  (20  Ga.  100)  990,  991 

Suisse  t'.  Lowtlier  (2  Hare,  424)  909 

Sullice  V.  Gradenigo  (15  La.  An.  .582)  631 

SuUings  V   Richmond  (5  AiU-n,  187)  173 

V.  Sullings  (9  Allen,  234)  204 

Sullivan's  Will  (Tuck.  94)  543 

Sullivan  v.  Burnett  (105  U.  S.  334)  159 

V.  Deadnian  (23  Ark.  14)  1218 

V.  l-V)sdick  (10  Hun,  173)  441 

V.  Holker  (15  Mass.  374)  7-30 

V.  Horner  (41  N  J.  Eq.  299)  759,  762  763 

V.  Sullivan  (100  Mass.  474)  72,  75 

V.  Sullivan  (1  Piiillim.  343)  107 

V.  Tioga  K.  K.  (44  Hun,  304)  546 

V.  Winthrop  (1  Sumn.  1)    994,  1007,  1009 

Sulzberger  v.  Sulzberger  (50  Cal.  385)        212 

Sumnierfield  v.  Howie  (2  Redf.  149)  347 

Sumnierford  r.  Gilbert  (37  Ga.  59)  187 

Sunnners  v.  Reynolds  (95  N.  C.  404)  704 

Sununersett  v.  Sunimersett  (40  Ala   596)    330 

Sunnnerville  ?•.  Hollidav  (1  Watts,  507)   1247 

Sumner  v.  Child  (2  Conn.  607)  1025 

V.  Conant  (10  Vt.  9)  2.50 

V.  Hampson  (8  Oh.  328)  289 

V.  Parker  (7  Mass.  79)  1244 

V.  Williams  (8  Mass.  162)  795,  1066 

Sunderland's  Estate  (60  Iowa,  732)     140,  141 

Sunderland  v.  Hood  (84  Mo.  293)  48 

V.  Hood  (13  Mo.  App.  282)  46,  48 

Surber  r.  Kent  (5  W.  Va.  96)  1155,  11.57 

Susz  v   F<)r>t  (4  Deni.  340)  581 

Sutherland  v.  Brush  (7. John.  Ch.  17)  387,  738 

V.  Harrison  (80  111.  363)  1105 

Suttle  V.  Turner  (8  .Jones,  403)  535 

Sutton's  Succession  (20  La.  An.  150)  437 

Sutton  r.  Craddock  (1  Ired.  Eq.  134)         1000 

V.  Public  Adm'r  (4  Dem.  .33)        400,  533 

V.  Sutton  (8  S.  W.  R.  .337)  156 

V.  Warren  (10  Met.  451)  224 

V.  Weeks  (5  Redf.  .353)  555 

Suvdam  v.  Barber  (18  N.  Y.  468)  496 

"  V.  Bastedo  (40  N.  J.  Eq.  4.33)      737,  1180 

V  Broadnax  (14  Pet.  07)  1208 

Swackhamer  r.  Klin^  (25  N.  J.  Eq.  503)  1195 

Swails  V.  Swails  (!)8  Ind.  511)      103,  978,  979 

Swain,  In  re  (07  Cal.  0.37)  808,  817 

V.  Hardin  (04  Ind.  85)  202 

V.  Naglee  (19  Cal.  127)  336 

V.  Spruill  (4  Jones  Eq.  .304)  1000 

Swaine  v.  Periue  (5  .lohn.  Ch.  482)     245.  205 

Swan  V.  Hammond  (138  Mass.  45)      108,  109 

V.  House  (50  Tex.  650)  810 


Page 

Swan  V.  Ligan  (1  McCord  Ch.  227)  1002 

i\  Picquet  (3  Piik.  443)  1195 

V.  Wheeler  (4  Day,  137)  1058,  1134 

Swancv  v.  Seott  (9  Humph.  327)  441 

Swandale  v.  Swandale  (25  S.  C.  389)  211 

Svvanu  v.  Garrett  (71  Ga.  .500)  728.  1017 

Swasej'  V.  American  Bible  Soc.  (57  Me. 

52.3)  923.  924,  926,  934,  987,  f88 

V.  Ames  (79  Me.  483)  8;i2 

I'.  Jaques  (144  Mass.  1.35)      353,  904,  905 

Swatzell  V.  Arnold  (1  Woolw.  383)  .-^OO 

Swavze  v.  Wade  (25  Kan.  551)  1198 

Svveaney  v.  Mallory  ((i2  Mo.  4815)  275 

Sweariugen  v.  Pendleton  (4  S.  &  R.  389)  363, 

374,  649 

Sweenev  v.  Damron  (47  111.  450)  609 

i:  Muldoon  (139  Mass.  304)  762 

Sweet  1-.  Sweet  (1  Redf.  451)  92 

Sweet  land  r.  Sweet  land  (4  Sw.  &  Tr.  6)       64 

Swectser  v.  Hav  (2  Grav,  49)  553 

Sweezev  v.  Willis  (1  liradf.  495)  516,  528,  .596 

Sweezvt'.  Tliaver  (1  Duer,  280)  12-33 

Sweigart  r.  Bei-k  (8  S.  &  R.  299)  638 

Swett  V.  Boardmau  (1  Mass.  2-'''8)  61 

Swift  r.  Martin  (19  Mo.  App.  488)  416 

V.  Miles  (2  Rich.  Eq.  147)  1230 

V.  Swift  (1  Russ.  &  Mvl    575)  1012 

V.  Wiley  (1  B.  Mon.  114)  _<  8 

Swink  V.  Snodgrass  (17  Ala.  653)  740 

Swinton  v.  Legare  (2  McC'ord  (  li.  440)       8. '6 

Swires  r.  Parsons  (5  W.  &  S.  357)  824 

Switzer  v.  Hank  (89  Ind.  73)  1075 

Swoope's  Appeal  (27  Pa.  St.  ."8)  978 

Svkes  V.  Chadwick  (18  AVall.  141)  242 

Svme  r.  Badger  (92  N.  C.  706)  711,  11.1-8 

"     r.  Riddle  (88  N.  C.  463)  10S2 

Symmes  v.  Arnold  (10  Ga.  506)  61 


Tabb  r.  Cabell  (17  Grat.  160)  1002 

r.  Collier  (08  Ga.  041)  187 

Taber  r.  Pack  wood  (I  Dav,  150)  431 

Tabler  r.  Tablcr  '02  Md.  001)  485 

V.  Wiseman  (2  Oh.  St.  207)  2-32 

Taft  V.  Morse  (4  Met.  Mass.  523)  1097 

V.  Stevens  (3  Grav,  504)  595 

Taggard  v.  Piper  (118  Mass.  315)  999 

Tainter  v.  Clark  (13  Met.  220)  -393,  593 

Talberfs  Succession  (10  La.  An.  2-30)         531 

Talbot  V.  Talbot  (1  Hagi,'.  705)  106 

V.  Talbot  (14  R.  I.  57)  244 

V.  Whipple  (14  Allen,  177)  606 

Taliaferro  v.  Burwell  (4  Call,  321)  232 

V.  Minor  (2  Call,  190)  11-34 

Tallmadge  v.  Sill  (21  Barb.  34)  6.56 

Tallv  I'.  Butterworth  10  Yerg.  .501)       83,  489 

Talmadge  v.  Talmadge  (66  Ala.  ]!i9)  199 

Talmage  J).  Chapel  (16  Mass.  71)  301.  366,  676 

Tankerslv  v.  Pettis  (61  Ala.  3,54)  1128 

Tanner  v.  Bennett  (33  Grat.  251)  678 

V.  Mills  (50  Ala.  356)  560 

f.  Thonus  (71  Ala.  233)  216 

Tapp  v.  Cox  (50  Ala   553)  1207 

Taiwan's  Appeal  (.52  Conn.  412)  923,  933,  951 

Tappan  v.  Bruen  (5  Mass.  193)  791 

V.  Chm-ch  (3  Dem.  187)  352 

V  Deblois  (45  Me.  122)  929 

V.  Tappan  (.30  N.  H.  50)        384,  4-32,  4.36 

Tappen  v.  l)avids<m  (27  N.  J.  Eq.  459)        71 

V.  Kain  (12  .John.  120)  1069 

Tarbell  v.  Jewett  (129  Mass.  457)  653 


TABLE    OF   CASES. 


cxxv 


VsVrCP 

Tarbell  r.  Parker  (100  Mass.  347)  102G,  l();jf) 

V.  Wliitinf,'(5  N.  H.  M)  4.i5 

Tarbox  y.  Kislier  (01)  Me.  2;J(;)  178,  I2();i 

Tarrant  v.  Swain  (15  Kan.  14(i)  201 

Tarsey'.s  Trust  (L.  H.    1  Kq.  Ml)  1014 

Tarviir  r.  llaine.'^  (5."j  Ala.  bO'.i)  721 

V.  Tankerslev  (51  Ala.  WJ)  1254 

V.  Tarver  (9'lVt.  174)  54,  4!i7 

Tasker  v.   Slieplierd  (G  Hurls.  &  Norm. 


088 

125,  127 

12.j4 

691,714 

244 


228 

'J4-i 

61(8 

34,  47 

353.  .'554 

277 

880 

897,  942,  943 

83 

787,  821 

11.58 


575) 
Tate  r  Hilbert  (2  Ves.  .Ir    111)     11 
Tate  (;.  Hunter  (3  .Stnibli.  Kq.  130) 

V.  Norton  (94  U.  S.  740) 

V.  Tate  (1  D.'v.  &  B.  Kq.  22) 

V.  Tate  (11  Hunipli.  4(;5) 
Tatroy.  Tatro  (18  Xt-b.  395) 
Tatuiu  V.  McLellan  (50  Miss.  1) 
Taveau  v.  Hall  (1  MeCord  Ch.  456) 
Tawney  v.  \jnvr  (70  Pa  St.  108) 
Tavloe  )\  Bond  (Bush.  Kq.  5) 
"  V.  Gould  (10  Barb.  388) 

V.  .lohnson  (63  N.  C.  .381) 

V.  Mosher  (29  Md  443) 
Taylor's  Appeal  (47  Pa.  St.  31) 

Estate  (10  (Jal.  482) 

Rotate  (52Cal.  477) 
Taylor  v.  Adann  (2  Sersj.  &  R.  534)  718 

V.  Barron  (35  N.  H.  484)      359,  360,  .301, 
404,  440,  5.i6.  753 

V.  B>nhain  (5  How.  233)  7.52 

V.  Biddle  (71  N.  C.  1)  570.  570 

V.  Brav  (32  N.  J.  L.  182)  147,  151 

V.  Brodhead  (5  Redf.  624)  71 

V.  Brooks  (4  L).  &  B.  149)  394 

V.  Brvn  Collesre  (34  X.  .J.  Eq.  101)       929 

V.  Burk  (91  Iiid.  252) 

V.  Conner  (7  Fnd.  115) 

V.  Cre.<sweil  (45  Md.  422) 

V.  Elder  (39  Oh.  St.  .535) 

V.  Gallowav  (1  Oh.  232) 

V.  Haygarth  (14  Sim.  8) 

V.  Highl)erger  (05  Iowa,  134) 

V.  Hutchison  (25  Grat.  536) 

V.  Johnson  (2  P.  Wins.  504) 

V.  Kellv  (31  Ala.  59) 

V.  Lanier  (3  Mtirph.  98) 

V.  MeCraekin  (2  Blaekf.  260) 

V.  McElrath  (35  Ala.  330) 

V.  Maris  (90  N.  C.  619) 

V.  Martindalft  (12  Sim.  158) 

V.  Mason  (9  Wheat.  325) 

V.  Mitchell  (87  Pa.  St.  518) 

V.  Moore  (47  Conn.  278) 

1).  Penn.  R.  Co.  (78  Ivv.  348) 

V.  Phillips  (3iJ  Vt.  238) 

V.  Reese  (4  Ala.  121) 

V.  Richardson  (2  Drew.  16) 

V.  Sample  (51  End.  423) 

V.  Savage  (1  How.  282) 

V.  Shait'(4  Dem.  528) 

V.  Tavlor  (53  Ala.  135) 

V.  Tavlor  (8  B.  Mon.  419) 

V.  Tavlor  (3  Bradf .  54) 

V.  TaVlor  (145  Mass.  2-39) 

V.  Tavlor  (93  N.  C.  418) 

V.  TaVlor  (2  Nott  &  McCord,  482) 

I'.  TaVlor  (03  Pa.  St.  481) 

v.  Thorn  (29  Oh.  St.  569) 

V.  Tibbats  (13  B.  Mon.  177) 


1196 

882 

36 

1097 

718 

97 

241 

285,  2!)1 

1008 

47 

980 

257 

1207 

727.  892 

633 

953,  900 

58 

419 

630 

434 

1214 

480 

221,  201 

752,  12.50 

738 

201 

1110 

687 

1222 

228 

100 

903 

196,  214 

498,  513 


1220 


Tolen  (38  N.  J.  Eq.  91)     893,  971,  974, 

1099 


Page 

Tavlor  r.  Walker  (1  Heisk.  734)  1031 

V.  Wendel  (4  Bradf.  .•i24)  1112 

V.  Wiiiburii  (20  Mo.  ;i()0)  40 

r.  Wright  (93  Ii;d.  121)  767,  1162 

Teague  v.  Corbitt  (57  Ala.  529)       1156,  1109, 

1179 
V.  Downs  (69  N.  C.  280)  012 

Teasdale  v.  Reaboriie  (2  Bav,  540)  (ii)9 

Teat  V.  Lee  (8  Port.  507)      "  1232 

Tebbets  v.   I  ilton  (24  N.  H.  120)  320 

V.  Tilton  (31  N.  H.  273)  ll;il 

Tedeiall  v.  Boukiiight  (25  S.  C.  275)       1244, 

1245 

'I'eets  V.  Weise  (47  N.  ,T.  L.  154)  8.)0 

i  Telford  v.  Boggs  (63  111.  498)  192 

V.  Morrison  (2  Add  .319)  1116 

Tell  FurnitureCo.r.  Stiles  (00  Miss.  849)  090, 

1155,  1158 

Temple  r.  Sammis  (97  N   Y.  520)         873,  878 

Templenian  v.  Fontlerov  (3  Rand.  434)        042 

Temples  ?•.  Cain  (00  Mi'ss.  478)  1087 

Teiibrook  v.  Brown  (17  Ind.  410)  124 

Ten  Eyck  v.  Runk  (31  N.  J.  L.  428)  621 

»."Vaiiderpool  (8  .John.  120)  795 

Tennell  v.  Ford  (30  Ga.  707)  881 

Tennent  v.  Pattnns  (0  Leigh,  190)  1022 

Tenney  v.  Poor  (14  Gray,  500)  1036 

Tennison  r.  Teiinison  (40  Mo.  77)  641 

Tennv  v.  Laslev  (80  Mo.  604)  819 

Terhune  r.  Oldis  (14  Atl.  R.,  N.  J.  6-?8)     829 

V.  White  (34  N.J    F:q.  98)  840 

Territorv  v.  Redding  (1  Fla.  242)  283 

Terrv's  Appeal  (55  Pa.  St.  344)  190 

Estate  (13  Phi^.  298)  1072 

Terrv  v.  Bale  (1  Dem.  452)  1142 

V.  Dayton  (31  Barb.  519)  1187, 1214 

V.  Edininster  (9  Pick.  355,  note)  103 

V.  Ferguson  (8  Port.  500)  648,  1142 

V.  Robins  (5  Sm.  &  M.  291)  602 

V.  Smith  (42  N.  J.  Eq.  .504)  884,  952 

V.  Vest  (11  Ired.  L.  05)  793,  794 

r.  Wilson  (63  Mo.  493)  641 

Tertrou  v.  Comeau  (28  La.  An  633)  1031 

Terwillinger  v.  Brown  (44  N.  Y.  237)        702, 

1084 
Teschemacher  v.  Thompson  (18  Cal.  11)  577 
Teverbaugh  v.  Hawkins  (82  Mo.  180)       1031, 

1047 

Tevis  V  Tevis  (23  Mo.  256)  782,  805 

Thacher  v.  Dunham  (5  Grav,  20)  1140 

Thackara  r.  Miutzer  (K'O  Pa.  St    151)         9,56 

Thatcher  v.  Phinnev  (7  Allen,  146)  609 

Thayer  v.  Boston  (15  Grav,  347)  893 

r.  Finnegan  (134  Ma.ss.  62)  1098 

r.  Homer  (11  Met.  104)  584 

V.  Lane  (Harr.  Jlich.  247)  1034 

V.  Spear  (58  Vt.  .327)  958 

V.  Thaver  (7  Pick.  209)  1245 

r.  Tha'ver  (14  Vt.  107)  247 

V.  Wellington  (9  Allen,  283)        968,  1018 

r.  AVinchester  (133  Mass.  447)  330 

The  Euphrates  (8  Cr.  385)  1208 

Theller  r.  Such  (57  Cal.  447)        296,  .323.  344 

Thellupon  r.  Woodford  (4  Ves.  227)     884,  917 

Thellusson  v.  Woodford  (13  Ves.  209)         500 

Thelusson  v.  Smith  (2  Wheat.  396)  771 

Theological  Societv  v.  Attornev  General 

(135  Mass.  285)  "  '  920,  931 

The  Pizarro  (2  Wheat.  227)  1208 

The  Protector  (9  Wall    087)  8 '7 

The  St.  Lawrence  (8  Cr.  4.34)  1208 


CXXVl 


TABLE   OF   CASES. 


rago 
Thibnfleaux's    Succession    (-38    La.    An. 

7Jti)  1207 

Thiuliaut  V.  Sebastian  (10  Ind.  454)  4!i-2 

'Ihinies  i'.  Stunipttt-W  Kan.  M)  i^l"-^ 

Ihomas  V.  Adams  (10  III.  iil'J)^  ^1*' 

V.  AttoiMifV    General    (2    Y.  &   Col. 

525)    "  1^"^ 

V.  Benlon  (4  Dedans.  17)  '.'01 

V.  Bonnie  ((Ki  Tex.  635)  12tJ4 

V.  Biulei-  (Venir.  217)  404,  510 

r.  Cameron  (10  Wend.  579)  410 

V.  Conns  (5  Unsli,  273)  0T8.  !»80 

1'.  Chamberlain  (30  Oil.  St.  112)   840,  803 
i:  Uavis  (76  Mo.  72)  002 

I,.  Dnnias  (07  Ala.  271)  1131 

V.  KUmaker  (1  Pars.  Lq.  98)  928 

r.  Frederick  (9  Gill  &  J.  115)  1103 

V.  (iannnel  (0  Leigh,  9)  251 

V.  Hanson  (44  Iowa,  051)  237 

V.  Harkness  (13  Bush,  23)  008 

V.  Hesse  (34  Mo.  13)  243,  201 

V.  Hiec;ins  (47  Md.  439)  900 

r.  Kni'i;hton  (23  Md.  318)  538 

V.  Le  Baron  (8  Met.  3.55)  1067 

V.  IMcElwee  (3  Strobh .  L.  131)  777 

V.  Morrisett  (76  Ga.  384)  493 

f.  I'eonle  (107  111.  517)  4.52 

r.  Rector  (23  VV.Va.  26)  989 

V.  Scruciis  (10  Yerp.  400)  738 

V.  Simpson  (3  Pa.  St.  00)  3.50 

V.  Stanlev  (4  Snepd,411)  745 

r   Stevens  (4  .lohn.  Ch.  007)  893 

V.  Stump  (02  Mo.  275)  4-3 

V.  Tanner  (6  T.  B.  Mon.  52)  441 

V.  Thomas  (15  B.  Mon.  178)  803 

r.  Thomas  (108  Ind.  576)  8^2 

V.  Thomas  (3  Lit.  8)  '80 

r.  Thomas  (17  N.  J.  Kq.  356)     110-5, 1110 
r.  Thomas  (35  N.  W   693)  271 

V.  White  (3  Lit.  177)  ^79 

V.  Wood  (1  Md.  Ch.  296)  272 

Thomason  v.  Blackwell  (5  St.  &'  P.  181)     582 
Thomasson  v.  Priskell  (13  Ga    253)  7!t4 

Thompson's  Estate  (33  Barb.  3.34)       509,  535 
Thompson,  Ex  parte  (4  Bradf.  154)         84,  85 
V    Allen  (103  Pa.  St.  44)  610 

n.  Branch  (.35  Tex.  21)  804 

V.  Brown  (4  John.  Ch.  619)  281,  282, 

679,  708,  798,  1272 
V.  Brown  (16  Mass.  172^  435,  451,  1090 
V.  Canterburv  (2  McCrary,  332)  757 

V.  Carmichael  (3  Sandf.  Ch.  120)      12L5, 

V.  Central  R.  R.  (60  Ga.  120)  020 

r.  Conner  (3  BradL  366)  54 

V.  Corbv  (27  Beav.  649)  920 

«.  Cox  (8  Jones  L.  311)  1062 

V.  Crockett  (19  Nev.  242)  040 

V.  Davitte  (.59  Ga.  472)  71 

V.  Doe  (8  Blackf.  330)      1034,  1035,  1037 
V.  Duncan  (1  Tex.  485)  712 

V.  Gant  (14  Lea,  310)  8^8,  960 

,    V.  Heffernan  (4  Drurv  &  W.  285)  49, 129 
V.  Hoop  (6  Oh.  St.  480)  271,  9.50 

V.  Huckett  (2  Hill,  S.  C  347)       535,  571 
V.  ,To^•ner  (71  N.  C.  369)  1040 

V.  Knight  (23  Ga.  399)  588 

V.  Kvner  (05  Pa.  St.  368)  40,  42.  47 

V.  McDonald  (2  Dcv.  &  B.  Eq.  4;3)    898 
V,  McGaw(2  Watts.  101)  1217 

V.  Mills  (30  Ind.  528)  CU 


Page 
Thompson  v.  Morgan  '5  S.  &  R.  289)  261 

V.  Munger  (15  Tex.  523)  1077 

V.  Onlev  (90  N.  C  9)  831 

r.  I'nhwr  (2  Rich.  Eq.  32)  632 

V.  Pincludl  (II  Mod.  177)  387 

V.  Reno  liann  (9  I'ac.  121)  848 

r.  Samson  (04  Cal.  33(1)  501.  5(i8 

V.  Sandtord  (13  (ia,  238)  1044 

V.  Schmidt  (3  Hill  S.  C.  156)  991 

V.  Smith  (13  Atl.  639)  758 

V.  Swoope  (24  Pa.  St.  474)  913 

V.  Tavlor(71  N.  Y.  217)  804 

V.  Thomas  (.30  Miss.  152)  1239 

V.  Thompson  (51  Ala.  493)  180,  215 

V.  Thompson  (1  Coll.  388)  889 

V.  Thompson  (3  Dem.  409)  908,  989 

V.  Thompson  (I  Jones  L.  430)  2-32 

V.  Thompson  (0  Munf.  514)  599 

V.  Thompson  (4  Oh.  St.  3:  3)  1105 

V.  Thompson  (12  Tex.  327)  120,  125 

r.  Tolmie  (2  Pet.  157)  32-3 

V.  Tracv  (60  N.  Y.  174)  1203 

V.  White  (45  Me.  445)  645,  6-56 

V.  Whitman  (18  Wall.  4.57)  452 

V.  WHiitmarsh  (100  N.  Y.  35)  828 

V.  Wi'son(2N.  H.  291)  368,4.40 

r   Winnebago  Co.  (48  Iowa,  155)         648 
V.  Young  (25  Md.  450)  906 

Thomps(ms  r.  jNIeek  (7  Leigh,  419)       512,  534 
Thomson's  Appeal  (89  Pa.  St.  36)  879 

Estate  (12  Phila.  36)  1230 

Thomson  v.  Norris  (20  N.  J.  Eq.  489)         933 
V.  Thomson  (1  Bradf.  24)  663 

Thorn's  Appeal  (3.5  Pa.  St.  47)  1046 

Thorn  v.  Garner  (42  Hun,  507)      1007,  1137, 

1 1  -!8 

V.  Ingram  (25  Ark.  52)  1059 

Thornbnrg  r.  Thornbnrg  ( 18  W.  Va.  522)   227 

Thorndike  v.  Barrett  (2  INIe.  312)  1044 

r.  Boston  (1  Met.  242)  442 

Thome's  Case  (4  Sw.  &  Tr.  36)  55 

Thornton  r.  Burch  (20  Ga.  791)  598 

V.  Howe  (31  Beav.  14)  909 

r.  Mehring(117  111.  55)  593 

V.  ]\loore  (61  Ala.  347)  52() 

r.  ]\rulquinne  (12  Iowa,  549)      1030,  1046 

V.  Thornton  (45  Ala.  274)  2<>3,  205 

V.  Winston  (4  Leigh,  152)      511,  514,  516 

Thorp  V.  Munro  (47  Hun,  246)  1097 

Thrasher  v.  Ingram  (32  Ala.  045)         8,8,  992 

Throckmorton  v.  Hobbv  (1  P.iownl.  51)      585 

Thrupp  V.  Collett  (26  Beav.  125)  907 

Thrustout  V.  Croppin  (2  W^  Bl   801)  507 

Thumb  V.  Gresham  (2  Met.  Ky.  300)  44() 

Thurber  v.  Chambers  (66  N.  V.  42)  8/4 

Thursby  v.  Myers  (57  Ga.  155)  991 

Thurston  v.  Doane  (47  Me.  79)  645 

V.  Lowder  (40  Me.  197)  64o 

V.  Maddocks  (0  Allen,  427)  201 

V.  Sinclair  (79  Ya.  101)  1012 

Thweattv.  Redd(.50(ia.  181)  8^2 

Thvrne  v.  Glengall  (2  H.  L.  Cas.  131)         9<5 

Tibbats  V.  Berry  (10  1!.  Mon.  473)  469 

Tichborne  r.  Tichbornc  (L.  R  2  P.  lV  D.  41)  402 

Tickle  V.  Quinn  (1  Dem.  425)       720,  727,  98  > 

Ticknor's  Estate  (13  Mich.  44)  9  2 

Ticknor  v.  Harris  (14  N.  H.  272)     1232,  12  .4 

Tiddr.  Quinn  (.52  N.H.  341)  212 

Tiebout  V.  IMillican  (61  Tex.  514)         191,  196 

Ticmann  r.  Molliter  (71  Mo.  512)  674 

r.  Ticmann  (34  Tex.  522)  204 


TABLE   OF    CASES, 


CXXVll 


Tier  v.  Pennell  (1  Edw.  Ch.  .'io-t)  WV-i 

Tiuniiiii  r.  Ik'iiiu  (2  Oh.  ;i8;i)  1048 

Tiei-s  r.  Tifi-s  (1)8  N.  V.  oG8)  88-t 

Tift  r.  CoUior  (2  S.  K.  II.  !)«)  12G4.  12(;7 

TitYt  r.  I'urttM-  (8  N.  Y.  5lti)  '.»ti4 

'J'ifiiiei-  r.  McGclice  (GO  .^li>s.  185)  I0u8 

Tilliv  V   Tilbv  (2  Dem.  514)  959 

Tilden,  III  re" (98  N.  Y.  4;J4)  ll.'K) 

Mait.Tof  (5  Dem.  2;U))  12:J4 

V.  Dows  (2  Deiii.  489)  ;i45 

V.  Dows  (.5  Dem.  240)  345,  1235,  12:iti 

V.  Tildeii  (13  (Jrav,  103)  86,  472,  972 

Tilshmaii  v.  Steiiart    4  Harr.  &  J.  156)         02 

Tiliett  v.  Avillett  (90  N.  C.  551)  1047 

Tillev  V  Bi-idf,a's  (105  III.  336)  1077 

Tillinghast  i'   Bradford  (5  K.  I.  205)  956 

V    Wheatou  (8  K    I.  536)  119 

Tillman  v.  Bowman  (08  Ir)wa,  450)  814 

V.  Davis  (95  N.  Y.  17)  903 

Tillotson  V   Race  (22  N.  Y   122)  981 

V.  Tillotson  (34  Conn.  335)  283 

Tillson  r.  .Small  (80  Me   90)      345,  1194,  1235 

Tillv  r.  Tillv  (2  Bl.  Ch.  436)  444,  445 

Tilton  V.  Society  (60  N.  H.  377)         893,  1250 

V.  Tilton  (32  N.  H.257)  873 

V.  Tilton  (41  N.  H.  479)  1040,  1194 

Timherlake  v.  Parish  (5  Dana,  345)  273 

Timbers  c.  Katz  (6  \V.  &  S.  290)  641 

Tiniinons  v.  Timmoiis  (6  Ind.  8)       1034,  1038 

Timothv  V.  Farr  (42  Vt.  43)  1196 

TiiulaU"  ('.  Tindall  (24  N.  .T.  Eq.  512)  944 

Tiner  v.  Christian  (27  Ark.  .306)         263,  1164 

Tinkham  v.  Smith  (56  Vt.  187)  1237 

Tiniien  v.  Mebane  (10  Tex.  246)  1247 

Tirrel  v.  Kenney  (137  Mass.  30)  205 

Tisdale  v.  Conn.  Life  Ins.  Co.  (26  Iowa, 

170)  445 

V.  Jones  (38  Barb.  523)  608 

Titcomb's  Estate  (Mvr.  55)  198 

Titlow  V.  Titlow  (51  Ba.  St.  216)  42 

Titmaii  V.  Moore  (43  111.  169)  200 

Titreriiii;toii  i-.  Hooker  (58  Mo.  593)   340,  356, 

658,  659,731,850,  1027,  1028,  10.J9,1107,  12fi3 

Tittm;m  c.  lul  wards  (27  Mo.  A  pp.  492)       .581 

Titus  V.  Titus  (26  N.  .J.  Eq.  Ill)  987,  988 

Tobelman  v.  Hildebrandt  (72  Cal.  31-3)      1126 

Tobev  V.  Miller  (54  Me.  480)  424,  425 

Tobii'is  V.  Francis  (3  Vt.  425)  603 

V.  Ketchum  (32  N    Y.  319)  268 

Toby  V.  .\lL-n  (3  Kan.  399)  842 

Todd's  Will  (2  Watts  &  S.  145)  55 

Todd  11.  Bradford  (17  Mass.  567)  856 

I'.  Davenport  (22  S.  C.  147)  391,  6J5 

V.  Moore  (I  l.ei^-h,  457)  702 

i\  Terry  (26  Mo.  .App  598)  817 

V.  Will"is  (66  Tex.  704)  407,  748.  749 

V.  \Vn'j;ht  (12  Heisk.  442)  402 

Toebbe  v.  Williams  (80  Ivv.  (i61)  62,  488 

Toledo.  P.  &  W.  It.  Co.  r   Curtenius  (65 

III.  120)  263 

T.)ler  v.  Toler  (2  Patt.  cK:  H.  71)  1083 

Tol.son  V   Tolson  (10  (Jill  &  .1.  1.59)  905 

Toman  v.  Dunlop  (18  Pa.  St.  72)  915 

Tome's  Appeal  (50  Pa.  St   285)  326 

Tomkins's  Estate  (12  Cal.  114)  214,  1075 

Tomkins  v.  Tomkins  (1  Bail.  92)  44 

r.  Tomkins  (18  S.  C.  1)  282,  1158 

Tomlin  V.  Beck  (1  Turn.  &  R.  438)  420 

V.  .lavne  (14  B.  ^Mon.  160)  270 

Tomlinsoh  v.  Bury  (145  Mass   346)     964,  968, 

986,  1110 


Pac;e 

Tompkins's  Estate  (12  Cal.  114)        214,  1075 

Tonijikiiis  v.  Fonda  (4  Pai.  4i8)  255 

V.  Tompkins  (18  S.  C.  1)  7;;8 

V.  Tompkins  (1  Sto.  547)  326 

V.  Weeks  (26  Cal.  50)  865 

Tomppert  r.  Tumppert  (Li  Bush,  326)         2^4 

Toms  I'.  Williams  (41  Mich.  .552,  883,  884,  942 

Toney  v.  Spragiiis  (80  Ala.  541)  1016 

Tongue  v.  Nut  well  (13  Md.  415)  943 

Tooke  V.  Hardeman  (7  Ga.  20)  267,  269 

V.  Hartley  (2  Dick.  785)  859 

Toome's  Estate  (54  Cal.  509)  42 

Tootle  I'.  Coldwell  (30  Kan.  125)  6o9 

Torrance  v.  McDougald  (12  Ga.  526)   531,  .564 

Torrence  v.  Davidson  (92  N.  C.  437)    678,  708 

Torre V  v.  Bank  (9  I'ai.  649)  702 

V.  Minor  (I  Sin.  ^.  M.  Ch    489)  274 

Touzanne's  Succession  (36  La.  An.  420)    1137, 

1164 

Tower's  Appropriation  (9  W.  &  S.  103)      951 

Towers  v.  Hagner  (3  Whart.  48)  611 

Towle  V.  Swasev  (106  xMass.  100)         636,  964 

965,  984,  985,  1007 

V.  Wood  (60  N.  H.  434)  57 

Towne  v.  Ammidowii  (20  Pick.  535)  558 

Townsend's  Appeal  (106  Pa.  St.  268)         1006 

Succession  (37  La.  An.  408)  588 

Succession  (3  So.  H.  488)  307 

Towi'.send  v.  Boi^art  (5  l!edt.  93)  31 

V.  Downer  C32  Vt.  183)  492 

V.  Gordon  (19  Cal.  188)  324,  562 

r.  Mavnard  (45  Pa.  St.  198)  610 

r.  Pell  (3  I)ein.367)  571 

r.  Kadclitte  (44  111.  446)  1246 

V.  Tallant  (33  Cal.  45)  10-30,  1052 

«   Townseud  (4  Coldw.  70)  466,  497 

V.  Townsend  (2  Sandf.  711)  265 

Townshend  v.  Brooke  (9  Gill.  90)  348 

V.  Townshend  (7  Gill,  10)  47D 

Towiison  r.  Tickell  (3  B.  ^^c  Aid.  31)  992 

Tozer  v.  Tozer  (2  Am.  L.  Reg.  510)  181 

Trabue  v.  Harris  (1  Met.  Kv.  597)  8.)8 

Tracev  r.  Shumate  (22  W.  Va.  474)  2  17 

Tracy  r.  Card  (2  Oli.  St.  431)     653,  749,  1139 

('.  Murray  (44  Mich.  109)  268.  272 

V.  Strong  (2  Conn.  659)  ii'iS 

Trafford  v.  Young  (3  Teim.  Ch.  496)  1031 

Trammel  v  Philleo  (33  Tex.  395)      699,  1165, 

1176 

Trammell  v.  Neal  (1  Tex.  Unr.  Cas.  51)     214 

Trappes  v.  Harter  (3  Tvrw.  603)  601 

Trask  r.  Baxter  (48  111.'  406)  257 

V.  Doiioghue  (1  Aik.  370)  385,  410 

Travis  v.  Iiislev  (28  La.  An.  784)  57G 

Tiawick  v.  Trawick  (67  Ala.  271)     1127,  1131 

Travlor  v.  Cabanne  (8  Mo.  App.  131)  817 

'v.  Marshall  (11  Ala.  4.58)  695 

Treadwell  r.  Cordis  (5  Grav,  341)  353 

Treat's  Appeal  (30  (\)nn.  113)  923,  9.'i2 

Treat  v.  Fortune  (2  Bradf.  116)  821 

V.  Treat  (13  Atl.  684)  11.53 

Trecothick  v.  Austin  (4  Mas.  16)        359,  365, 

374,  643,  646,  665 

Tredwell  v.  Graham  (88  N.  C.  208)  832 

Tremble  v.  Jones  (3  Murphv,  579)  1272 

Treinmel  r.  Kleiboldt  (75  Mo.  255)  276 

V.  Kleiboldt  (6  Mo.  App.  549)  276 

Trenholm  v.  Morgan  (5  S.  E.  721)  121 

Trent  r.  Trent  (24  Mo    307)  10:3 

Trescot  V.  Trescot  (1  IMcC.  Ch.  417)  112! 

Trevelvan  v   Lofft  (83  Va.  141)  1164 


CXXVlll 


TABLE   OF   CASES. 


V.  Bayne  (7  Ves.  508) 
Trimmier  v.  Trail  (2  Bai.  480) 


Pase 

Trevelyan  v.  Trevelvan  (1  Phillim.  140)    481 

Triclie's  Succes^^ioii  (2'J  La.  An.  384)         10U4 

Trigg  V.  Daniel  (2  liibb,  301)  115.3 

Trimble  v.  Uzieduzvilu  (.57  How.  Pr.  208)  .Ha 

V.  Faris.s  (78  Ala.  2G0)  788,  843 

V.  James  (40  Ark.  393)      11-32,  1152,  1159 

V.  Marshall  (GO  Iowa,  233)  843 

Trimmer  v.  Adams  (18  N.  J.  Eq.  505)     1130, 

1209 
981 

^ 550,  701 

Triplett  v.  Wells  (Litt.  Cas.  49)  533 

Tripner  i\  Ai)ralianis  (47  I'a.  St.  220)  609 

Triune  v.  Frazier  (4  H.  &  .1.  440)         925.  935 
Trish  %:  Newell  (02  111.  190)  32,  38.  39 

Trott  V.  West  (9  Yerg.  433)  846 

Trotter  v.  Trotter  (40  Miss.  704)         844,  1187 
V.  White  (10  Sni.  &  M.  007)  366 

Trotters  v.  Winchester  (1  Mo.  413)        72,  497 
Trongh's  Estate  (75  Pa.  St.  115)  119 

Troup  V.  Kice  (55  Miss.  278)  1138 

V.  Wood  (4  .John.  Ch.  228)  402 

Trowbridge  v.  Cross  (117  III.  109)  201 

V.  Hoiden  (.58  Me.  117)  612 

True  V.  Morrill  (28  Vt.  672)  1198 

Trueinan  r.  'lilden  (0  N    H.  201)  700 

Trnett  v.  Cnmmons  (0  111.  App.  73)  423 

Trumble  v.  Williams  (18  Neb.  144)    576,  583, 

752 

Trust  V.  Harned  (4  Bradf.  213)  776 

Trustees  v.  Calhoun  (25  N.  Y.  422)  475 

V.  Dickson  (1  Freem.  Ch.  474)  800 

V.  Fleming  (10  Bush,  234)  12li4 

r.  King  (12  Mass.  546)  913 

V.  Peaslee,  (15  N.  H.  317)  8J3 

V.  Wilkinson  (36  N.  J.  Eq.  141)  922 

Trj-on  V.  Farnsworth  (30  Wis.  577)  1123 

V.  Trvon  (16  Vt.  313)  3.30,  108  J 

Tuck  V.  Boone  (8  Gill,  187)  507 

Tucker  v.  Bellamy  (4  S.  E.  R.  34)  ]58 

V.  Bishop  (16'N.  Y.  402)  896 

V.  Field  (5  Redf.  1.39)  46 

V.  Harris  (13  Ga.  1)  -323,  .325,  .500 

V.  Henderson  (03  Ala.  280)  190 

V.  Inman  (4  M.  &  Gr.  1049)  26 

V.  Seaman's  Aid  Society  (7  Met.  188)  892, 

923 

V.  Stiles  (.39  Miss.  196)  897 

V.  Thurstan  (17  Yes.  131)  103 

V.  Tucker  (5  Ired.  L.  161)  76 

V  Tucker  (4  Keyes,  136)  349 

V.  Tucker  (29  ^lo.  350)  128,  248 

V.  Tucker  (32  :\Io.  464)  128 

V.  Tucker  (28  N   J.  Eq.  223)  1191 

V.  Tucker  (33  N.  .J.  E(|.  235)  705,  709 

r.  Tucker  (5  N.  Y.  408)  915 

V.  Whalev  (11  R.  I  543)  411 

V.  Williams  (Dudley,  329)  417 

V.  Yell  (25  Ark.  420)  776 

Tudor  V.  James  (53  Ga.  302)  355 

V.  Terrel  (2  Dana,  47)  893 

Tuggle  V.  Gilbert  (1  Duy.  340)  678 

Tuller,  In  re  (79  111.  99)  104 

Tullett  V.  Armstroi  g  (1  Beav.  1)  816 

Tullis  V.  Kidd  (12  Ala.  648)  480 

Tunison  v.  Tunison  (4  Bradf.  138)  69 

Tunno  v.  Trezeyant  (2  Desaus.  264)  608 

Tmistall  V.  Pollaid  (11  Leigh,  1)  364,  .371, 

649,  1184 
Turbeville  v.  Gibson  (5  Heisk.  565)  237 

Tureaud  v.  Gex  (21  La.  An.  253)      1072,  1073 


P;ij;e 

Turley  v.  Young  (5  J.  J.  Marsh.  133)        1230 

Tuniage  v.  Turnage  (7  Ired.  Eq.  127)        1229 

TurnbuU  v.  Endicott  (3  .Sm.  &  M.  302)        332 

Turner's  Appeal  (52  Midi.  398)  979 

Turner  v.  Amsdell  (3  Dem.  19)  10-36 

V.  Bank  of  No.  America  (4  Dall.  8)      324 

V.  Bennett  (70  111.  203)  203 

V.  Benoist  (50  Mo.  145)  3.34 

V.  Cheesman  (15  N.  J.  Eq.  243)       -37,  40, 

41,  42,  43,  44 

V.  Child  (1  Dev.  L.  331)  417,  422 

V.  Cook  (36  Ind.  129)  30,  70 

V.  Ellis  (24  Miss.  173)  660,  1040 

V.  Fisher  (4  Sneed,  209)  170 

V.  Hallowell  Institution  (76  Me.  527)   895 

V.  Horner  (29  Ark.  440)  861 

V.  Ivie  (5  Heisk.  222)  898,  917 

V.  Johnson  Co.  (14  Bush,  411)  1197 

V.  Kelly  (67  Ala.  173)  1221 

V.  Linam  (55  Ga.  253)  358,  368 

V.  Malone  (24  S.  C  398)         324,  326,  330 

V.  Martin  (7  DeG.  M.  &  G.  429)  986 

V   Ogden  (1  Cox  Lh.  316)  927 

v.  Scott  (51  Pa.  St.  126)  60 

r.  Street  (2  Rand.  404)  1017 

r.  Tapscott  (30  Ark.  312)  1146 

V.  Turner  (44  Ala.  437)  228 

V.  Turner  (30  Miss.  428)         106,  170,  213 

J7.  Turner  (57  Miss.  775)  1100 

V.  Whitten  (40  Ala   530)  215 

Turney  v.  Turney  (24  III.  025)  1032,  1037 

r.*  VV  illiams  (7  Yerg.  172 )  1 125,  1 128 

Turnipseed  v.  Fitzpatrick  (75  Ala.  297)      216, 

254,  259 

Turpin  v.  Thompson  (2  Met.  Ky.  420)        119 

V.  Turinn  (88  Mo.  337)       '  1215 

Turvies's  Case  (2  Rnlle  Abr.  678)  1117 

Tuttle  V.  Robinson  (33  N.  H.  104)      002,  6.51, 

691,  761,  764 

V.  Tuttle  (2  Dem.  48)  940 

V.  Willson  (10  Oh.  24)  274 

Tuxbury's  Appeal  (67  Me.  267)  1194 

Tweedy  v.  Bennett  (31  (Jonn.  276)  766 

Twitchell  v   Smith  (.35  N.  H.  48)  1207 

Twitty  V.  Camp  (1  Phill.  Eq.  61)  955 

V.  Houser  (7  S.  C  153)  711 

V.  Martin  (90  N.  C.  643)  938,  941 

Tylden  v.  Hyde  (2  Sim.  &  St.  2.38)  716 

Tyler  v.  Burrington  (39  Wis   376)  823 

V.  Fleming  (35  N.  W.  902)  1209 

V.  Gardiner  (35  N.  Y.  5.59)  48 

i\  Jewett  (82  Ala.  93)  201,  210 

V.  Tyler  (19  HI.  151)  107 

r.  Whitney  (8  Vt.  26)  675 

Tynan  v.  Paschall  (27  Tex.  286)  90 

Tyrrell  v.  JMorris  (1  D.  &  B.  Eq   559)  693 

Tyson  v.  Blake  (22  N.  Y.  558)  874 


Udny  V.  Udny  (L.  R.  1  H.  L.  Sc.  461)  443 
Uhler  V.  Semple  (20  N.  J.  Eq   288)  234 

Uldrick  V.  Simpson  (1  S.  C.  283)  411,  512,  545 
Ulp  r.  Campbell  (19  Pa.  St.  301)  249 

Ulrich  V.  LitchHekl  (2  Atk.  372)  895 

Underbill  v.  Newburger  (4  Redf.  499)       1188 

V.  Saratoga  Co.  (20  Barb.  455)  951 

Underwood  v  Dismukes  (Meigs.  299)  942 

V.  Underwood  (22  W.  Va.  303)  1037 

Unger  v.  Leiter  (.32  Oh.  St.  210)  238,  262 

Union  Bank  v.  Hicks  (67  Wis.  189)  828 

IV  Jolly  (18  How.  503)  374,  1269 


TABLE   OF   CASES. 


CXXIX 


Pase 
Union  Bank  v.  Powell  (3  Fla.  175)  1057 

V.  Smith  (4  Cr.  C.  C.  5()i))  704,  11^8 

Union  Life  Ins.  Co.  v.  Stuveas  (19  Fed. 

Kep.  071)  647 

United  States  v.  Backus  (G  McLean,  443)  771 
V.  Clark  (1  I'aine,  (i2!J)  772 

V.  Cutts  (1  Sumn.  133)  655 

V.  Duncan  (4  McLean,  !)!))  267,  209 

V.  Duncan  (4  McLean,  007)  771,  772 

V.  EL'Klcston  (4  Sawy.  199)  7G6,  770,  772, 

1140 
V.  Fisher  (2  Cr.  358)  771,  772 

V.  Fox  (104  U.  S.  315)  378,  912 

V.  Hack  t8  Pet.  271)  771 

V.  Hodson  (10  Wall.  395)  554 

V.  Hooe  (3  Cr.  73)  771 

V.  Hunter  (5  Mas.  229)  772 

V.  Mav  (4  Mackev,  4)  391,  551,  1252 

V.  Pavne  (4  Dillon,  387)         443,  451,  455 
V.  Rickett  (2  Cr.  C.  C.  553)  772 

V.  10  Packages  (2  Mason,  48)  670 

V.  Tappan  (11  Wheat.  419)  070 

V.  Walker  (109  U.  S.  2o8)  744,  745 

V.  Wilev  (11  Wall.  508)  847 

Universalist  Soc.  v.  Kimball  (34  Me.  424)  924 
Universalists  V.  Mever  (30  Ind.  375)  1205 

University's  Appeal  (97  Pa.  St.  187)    984.  985, 

987.  988 
University  v.  Hughes  (90  X.  C.  537)  394,  749 
University  of  North  Carolina   v.  Fov  (1 

Murphy,  58)  '         308 

Unknown  Heirs  v.  Baker  (23  111.  484)  383, 

397,  501 
Upchurch  v.  Upchurch  (10  B.  Mon.  102)  70 
Updegraff  v.  Trask  (18  Cal.  458)  713 

Updegraph  v.  Commonwealth  (II  S.  &  R. 

394)  908 

Updike  V.  Tompkins  (100  III.  406)  889 

UpHll  V.  Marshall  (3  Curt.  Ec.  630)  101 

Upham  V.  Emerson  (119  Mass.  509)  268 

Upper  Appomattox  Co.  v.  Hardings    (11 

Grat.  1)  621 

Upshaw  V.  Upshaw  (2  Hen.  &  M.  381)       209 
Urev  V.  Urev  (5  S.  W.  R.  8-59)  355 

Urich's  App'eal  (86  Pa.  St.  380)  874 

Urmev  v.  W.ioden  (1  Oh.  St.  100)  923 

Urnuhart  v.  Oliver  (56  Ga.  344)  28 

Uslier  V.  Richardson  (29  Me.  415)  251 

Usticke  V.  Bawden  (2  Add.  116)  99 

Utica  Ins.  Co.  v.  Lynch  (11  Pai.  520)  705 

Utlev  V.  Rawlins  (2  D.  &  B.  Eq.  438)         679 
V.  Titcomb  (63  N.  H.  129)  971,  972 

Utterton  v.  Robins  (1  Ad.  &  EI.  423)  86 

Utz's  Estate  (43  Cal.  200)  110 


Vaehell  v.  Jeffereys  (Prec.  Ch.  170)  1215 

Vail's  Appeal  (37'Conn.  185)       340,  814.  855 

Vail  V.  Givan  (.55  Ind.  59)  574.  580 

V.  Male  (37  N.  J.  Eq.  .521)  584,  12.59 

V.  Rinehart  (105  Ind.  6)  1073 

Valcourt  V.  Sessions  (.30  Ark.  515)  549 

Valencia  v.  Bernal  (20  Cal.  328)  428 

Valentine  v.  Durvea  (37  Hun,  427)  1085 

V.  Norton  (30  Me.  194)  620 

V.  Kuste  (93  111.  .585)  1008 

V.  Strong  (20  Md.  522)  1136 

V.  Valentine  (2  Barb.  Ch.  4-30)  1170,  1175 

V.  Valentine  (4  Hedf.  205)  1125,  1189 

Valle  r.  Brvan  (19  Mo.  423)  1033,  1043 

r.  Fleming  (19  Mo.  454)  1031 

VOL.    I.  —  (■ 


Page 
Van  Alst  v.  Hunter  (5  .Johns.  Ch.  148)  43 
Van  Alstyne  v.  Van  Alstyne  (28  N.  Y, 

375)  888 

Vanarsdall  v.  Faunfleroy  (7  B.  Mon.  401)  277 
Van  Bibber  v.  Julian  (8i  xMo.  618)   748,  1041, 

1183 
Van  Blarcom   v.   Dager   (31   N.   J.    Eq. 

783)  1006 

Van  Branier  v    Hoffman  (2  John.  Cas. 

200)  1007 

Vance's  Succes.sion  (.36  La.  An.  559)  932 

Succession  (39  La.  An.  371)  923 

Vance  v.  Anderson  (39  Iowa,  426)  493 

V.  Campbell  (1  Dana,  229)  902 

V.  Crawford  (4  Ga.  445)  500 

V.  Fisher  (10  Humph.  211)  715 

V.  Maroney  (4  Col.  47)       330,  1021,  1090 

V.  Nagle  (70  Pa.  St.  176)  611 

V.  Upson  (04  Tex.  2G(i)  298 

V.  Upson  (00  Tex.  470)  34 

V.  Vance  (21  Me.  364)  265 

Vancil  v.  Evans  (4  Coldw.  340)  873 

Van  Cleaf  y.  Burns  (43  Hun,  461)  228 

Van  Cortland  v.  Kip  (1  Hill,  590)  113 

Vanderford's  Appeal  (12  Atl.  R.)  491        1167 

Vanderhevden  v.  Reid  (Hopk.  408)  1209 

V.  Vanderhevden  (2  Paige,  287)  1168, 

1170,  1176 

Van  Dermoor,  In  re  (42  Hun,  326)  647 

Vanderveer  v.  Alston  (16  Ala.  494)     425.  4;32 

Vander  Volgen  i-.  Yates  (3  Barb.  Ch.  242)  933 

Vandervooft,  In  re  (1  Redf.  270)  1142 

Vanderzee  v.  Slingerland  (103  N.  Y.  47)    949 

Van  Deusen  v.  Havward  (17  Wend.  67)     554 

Van  Deuzer  v.  Gordon  (39  Vt.  Ill)  85 

Vandever  v.  Baker  (13  Pa.  St.  121)  10.58 

V.  Freeman  (20  Tex.  333)  804 

Vandewalker  v.  Rollins  (63  N.  H.  400)   944, 

1018 
Vandigrift  v.  Potts  (72  Ga.  665)  183 

Vandiver  v.  Vandiver  (20  Kan.  501)  195 

Vandor  i-.  Roach  (73  Cal.  614)  116 

Van  Doren  r.  Olden  (19  N.  J.  Eq.  176)  1004 
Vandruff  v.  Rinehart  (29  Pa.  St.  2-32)  65 

Van  Duseu's  Appeal  (102  Pa.  St.  224)  999 
Van  Duyne  v.  Van  DuA-ne  (14  N.  J.  Eq. 

49)      '  "  500 

Vanduzer  v.  McMillan  (-37  Ga.  299)  284 

Vandyke  v.  Chandler  (10  N.  J.  L.  49)  857 
Van   Dyke  v.  Vanderpool  (14  N.  J.  Eq. 

198)  "  942 

Van  F>pps  v.  Van  Deusen  (4  Pai.  64)  640 

Van  Gieson  v.  Howard  (7  X.  J.  Kq.  462)  938 
Van  Gorder  v.  Smith  (99  Ind.  404)  877 

Van  Guilder  v.  Justice  (56  Iowa.  669)  268 
Van  Guvsling  v.  Van  Kuren  (-35  N.  Y.  70)  31 
Van  Hariswvck  v.  Wiese  (44  Barb.  494)  65 
Van  Hook  r.  Letchford  (35  Tex.  598)  807 
Vanhook  V.  Vanhook  (1  D.  &  B.  Eq.  589)  942 
Van  Horn  v.  Ford  (16  Iowa,  578)  1002 

V.  Keenan  (28  111.  445)  41 

V.  Teasdale  (9  N.  J.  L.  379)  797 

Vanhorn  v.  Walker  (27  Mo.  App.  78)    345, 

1235 
Van  Home  v.  Campbell  (100  X.  Y.  287)    947, 

948 

V.  Fonda  (5  .John.  Ch.  388)  512 

Van  Houten  v.  Post  (32  N.  J.  Eq.  709)     978, 

980,  11.39 

V.  Post  (.39  N.  J.  Eq.  51)  972 

Van  Huss  v.  Rainbolt  (2  Coldw.  139)      42,  43 


cxxx 


TABLE   OF   CASES. 


Van  Kleeck  v.  Dutch  Church  (20  Wend. 

457  88-t,  944 

V.  Reformed  Church  (6  Pai.  600)  882 

Vnnleer  v.  Vaiileer  (3  Tenii.  Ch.  23)  232,  247 

Vanmeter  v.  Jones  (3  N.  J.  Eq.  520)  G«8,  1131 

V.  Lore  (33  111.  200)  1206 

Van  Nest's  Estate  (Tuck.  130)  1171 

Van  Nest  v.  Van  Nest  (43  N.  J.  Eq.  126)  908, 

987 
Van  Nostrand  v.  Moore  (52  N.  Y.  12)         873 
V.  Wripht  (Hill  &  Den.  260)  1035 

Vanpelt  v.  Veglite  (14  N.  J.  L.  207)  738 

Van  Kensselaer  v.  Kearnev  (11  How.  297)  203 
Van  Saun  v.  Farlev  (4  Daly,  165)  812 

Van  Slyke  v.  Schmeck  (10  Pai.  301)  1199 
Van   Steenwvck   v.  Washburn   (59  Wis. 

483)  '  208,  270,  271 

Van  Tuvl  v.  Van  Tuvl  (57  Barb.  235)        260 
Van  Vechten  v.  Keator  (63  N.  Y.  52)         873 
V.  Pearson  (5  Pai.  512)  949 

Van  Vliet's  Appeal  (102  Pa.  St.  574)  1099 
Van  Voorhis  v.  Brintnall  (86  N.  Y.  18)  157 
Van  Vronker  v.  Eastman  (7  Met.  157)  239 
Van  Wert  r.  Benedict  (1  Bradf.  114)  27 

Van  Wickle  v.  Landry  (29  La.  An.  330)  210 
Van  Winkel  v.  Van  Houten  (3  N.  J.  Eq. 

172)  1099 

Van   Winkle  v.  Schoonmaker  (15  N.   J. 

En.  381)  26 

Van  Wvck  v.  Bloodgood  (1  Bradf.  155)      942 

Vanzandt  v.  Vanzandt  (23  III.  536)  204 

Vanzant  v.  Bigham  (76  Ga.  759)  991 

V.  Morris  (25  Ala.  285)  432,  898 

Varnell  v.  Loague  (9  Lea,  158)  399 

Varner  v.  Bevil  (17  Ala.  286)       442,  494,  495 

Varnnm  v.  Meserve  (8  Allen,  156)  596 

Varrell  r.  Wendell  (20  N.  H.  431)  904 

Vastine  v.  Dinan  (42  Mo.  269)  749 

Vaughan  v.  Browne  (2  Str.  1106)  420 

V.  Dickes  (20  Pa.  St.  509)  915,  949 

V.  Farmer  (90  N.  C.  607)  720 

V.  Holmes  (22  Ala.  593)  1043 

V.  Northup  (15  Pet.  1)  358,  363,  651 

V.  Vaughan  (30  Ala.  329)  953 

Vaughn  v.  Barrett  (5  Vt.  333)  359,  440 

V.  Deloatch  (65  N.  C.  378)  648,  715,  1142 

V.  Lovejov  (34  Ala.  437)  963 

r.  Suggs '(82  Ala.  357)  356 

Vawter  v.  Missouri  R.  R.  Co.  (84  Mo. 

679)  630 

Veal  V.  Fortson  (57  Tex.  482)  434 

Veazey  ».  Whitehouse  (10  N.  H.  409)  1097 
Veazie  Bank  v.  Young  (53  Md.  555)  1195 
Vedder  v.  Saxton  (40  Barb.  188)  171 

Venable  v.  Mitchell  (29  Ga.  500)  393 

Ventress  v.  Smith  (10  Pet.  161)  695,  1021 
Verdier  ».  Verdier  (8  Rich.  135)  70,  1094 
Vermilvea  v.  Beattv  (0  Barb.  429)  369,  050 
Verner's  Estate  (6  "Watts,  250)  737,  1138 

Vernet  v.  Williams  (3  Dem.  349)  1005 

Vernon  v.  Curtis  (2  H.  B1.18)  422 

V.  Egmont  (1  Bligh,  n.  s.  554)  790 

V.  Kirk  (30  Pa.  St.  218)  475 

V.  Manvers  (31  Beav.  023)  1104 

V.  Valk  (2  Hill  Ch.  257)  1022 

Vernor  v.  Coville  (54  Mich.  281)  722 

Verplanck,  In  re  (91  N.  Y.  439)  323,351.  352 
Verrv  v.  McClellan  (6  Gray,  535)  1047 

Vezey  v.  .Jamson  (1  Sim.  &  St.  69)  934 

Tick  V.  Vicksburg  (1  How.  Miss.  379)    534, 

561 


Page 

Vickers  v.  Cowell  (1  Beav.  529)  592 

V.  Pound  (0  H.  L.  Cas.  885)  968 

V.  Vickers  (L.  R.  37  Ch.  Div.  525)        978 

Victory  v.  Krauss  (41  Ilun,  533)  623 

Vidal  V.  Comniagcre  (13  La.  An.  510)  140, 141 

V.  Girard  (2  How.  127)   908,  920,  927,  958 

Villard  v.  Robert  (1  Strobh.  Eq.  393)      746, 

1147,  1182 

Vincent  v.  Martin  (79  Ala.  540)  283,  296, 1132 

V.  Piatt  (5  Harr.  104)  596 

V.  Spooner  (2  Cash.  467)  204 

V.  Vincent  (1  Heisk.  333)  182,  220 

Vining  V.  Hall  (40  Miss.  83)  96 

Virgin  V.  Gaither  (42  111.  39)  121 

Vittum  V.  Gilnian  (48  N.  H.  416)        617,  625 

Voelcknert).  Hudson  (1  Sandf.  215)  257 

Vogel's  Succession  (16  La.  An.  139)  445 

Succession  (20  La.  An.  81)    384,  409,  576 

Vogel  V.  Vogel  (22  Mo.  161)  608 

Von  Arx  v.  Wemple  (43  N.  J.  L.  154)        841 

Von  Kettler  v.  Johnson  (57  111.  109)  1249 

Voorhees  v.  Bank  of  U.  S.  (10  Pet.  449)  1046 

V.  McGinnis  (48  N.Y.  278)  603 

V.  Stoothoff  (11  N.  J.  L.  145)  1137 

V.  Voorhees  (6  N.  J.  I':q.  511)  913 

V.  Voorhees  (18  N.  J.  Eq.  223)  1124 

V.  Voorhees  (39  N.  Y.  463)  480 

Voorhies  v.  Baxter  (1  Abb.  Pr.  43)  283 

Voorhis  v.  Childs  (17  N.  Y.  354)  287 

Voting  Laws,  In  re  (12  R.  I.  586)  277 

Vowinckel  v.  Patterson  (114  Pa.  St.  21)    1244 

Vreedenburgh  v.  Calf  (9  Pai.  128)      332,  571, 

1203 

Vreeland  v.  Jacobus  (19  N.  J.  Eq.  231)      237 

V.  Rvno  (26  N.  J.  Eq.  160)  28 

V.  VVeeland  (16  N.  J.  Eq.  512)    855,  1154 

V.  Vreeland  (13  N.  J.  L.  512)  697 

Vroom  V.  Van  Home  (10  Pai.  549)      365,  426 

Vulhamy  v.  Noble  (3  Mer.  593)  288 

Waddill  V.  Martin  (3  Ired  Eq.  562)  1170 

Wade's  Appeal  (29  Pa.  St.  328)  776 

Wade  V.  Amer.  Soc.  (4  Sm  &  M.  670)     1201 

V.    American    Colonization    Society 

(7  Sm.  &  U.  003)  927,  929 

V.  Bridges  (24  Ark.  509)  407 

V.  Hardy  (75  Mo   394)  832 

V.  Jones  (20  Mo.  75)  181 

V.  Kalbfleisch  (58  N.  Y.  282)  624 

V.  Labdell  (4  Cush.  510)  3.50 

V.  Nazer  (1  Rob.  Ec.  627)  101 

V.  Odeneal  (3  Dev.  L.  423)  336 

V.  Pritchard  (69  111.  279)        680,  681,  682 
V.  Rus.sell  (17  Ga.  425)  1014 

V.  Wade  (1  Wa.sh.  C.  C  477)  1138 

Wadsworth's  Succession  (2  La.  An.  966)  1053 
Wadsworth  v.  Chick  (55  Tex.  241)  346 

V.  Henderson  (16  Fed.  R.  447)  1264 

Wager  ?'.  Barbour  (4  S.  E.  K.  842)  833 

V.  Wager  (89  N   Y.  161)     354,  719,  1117. 

1123 

V.  Wager  (96  N.  Y.  164)  937 

Wagner's  Appeal  (43  Pa.  St.  102)  893 

Wacrner  v.  McDonald  (2  Harr.  &  J   346)  55, 

61 
V.  Varner  (50  Iowa,  532)  140 

Wagstaff  V.  Lowerre  (23  Barb.  209)        1175 
Wahrmund  v.  Merritt  (60  Tex.  24)  210 

Wainford  v.  Barker  (1  Ld.  Ravm.  2-32)  1115 
Wainwright's  Appeal  (89  Pa.  St.  220)        48 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


CXXXl 


Wait,  Appellant  (7  Pick.  100)  (;45 

V.  Holt  (58  N.  H.  4C7)  G13,  7r,7 

V.  Huntington  (40  (jonn.  !))  925 

Waitc  i\  Breeze  (18  Hun,  Wi)  4fi 

Waitedeld  r.  ('ainpl)ell  (20  Me.  3<M)        105(; 

r.  I'hclps  (.■i7  N.  H.  21t(j)  885 

M'akenian  r.  Hazleton  (:{  Harb.  Ch.  148)    678 


WalJen  r.  Ciianibers  (7  Oil.  St.  30) 
V.  (ii-iiilfv  (;JG  III.  ■52;i) 
V.  riiillips  (5  S.  \V.  U  757) 

Waldniii  r.  Simmons  (28  Alii.  029) 
V.  Walilron  (4  Hiadf.  114) 

Wales  II.  Newboiild  (0  Midi.  40) 
V.  Willard  (2  Mass.  120) 

Walker's  Appeal  (110  I'a.  St.  419) 
Estate  (3  Kawle,  229) 
Estate  (9  Serg.  &  K.  22.'5) 


0.59 

1077 

145 

287 

1105 

G80 

448 

1142 

1108 


11 G3,  1170. 
1172 

Walker  v.  Bradlev  (3  Pick.  201)  8.V2 

r.  Brooks  (99' N.  C.  207)  121!) 
V.  Bvers  (14  Ark.  246)    429,  809, 817,  842, 
1207,  1208 

V.  Cheever  (35  N.  H.  339)  798 

V.  Cheever  (39  N.  H.  420)  845 

V.  Covar(2  S.  C.  10)  8-59 

r.  Craig  (18  HI.  110)  093 

V.  Crosland  (3  Rich.  Eq.  23)  552 

V.  Deaver  (79  Mo.  064)  1200 

V.  Deaver  (5  Mo.  App.  139)  242 
V.  Diehl  (79  111.  473)  810,  1036,  1038,  1 155 

r.  Doughertv  (14  Ga.  653)  401 

V.  Drew  (20'Ela.  908)  817 

V.  Galbreath  (3  Head,  315)  383 

V.  Hall  (1  Pick.  19)  667 

r.  Hill  (17  Mass.  380)  852 

V.  Hunter  (17  Ga.  304)  473 

V.  Johnson  (82  Ala.  347)  997 

V.  Johnston  (70  X.  C.  576)  896 

V.  Lvman  (0  Pick.  458)  857,  1199 

V.  Mav  (2  Hill  Ch.  22)  426 

I'.  Morris  (14  Ga.  323)  570 

V.  Murphv  (34  Ala.  591)  593 

V.  Patter.-<on  (.36  Me.  273)  795 

V.  Perrvnvm  (23  Ga.  3i)9)  500 

V.  Pritcliard  (121  111.  221)  948,  999 

V.  Schuvlcr  { 10  Wend.  480)  230 

V.  Sherman  (20  Wend.  636)  603 

V.  SUeene  (3  Head,  1)  74 

V.  Torrance  (12  Ga.  604)  505,  576 

V.  Walker  (17  Ala.  390)  873,  1007 

V.  Walker  (2  Curt.  854)  106 

V.  Walker  (14  Ga.  242)  41 

V.  Walker  (25  Ga.  420)  913,  923 

V.  Walker  (2  111.  App.  418)  262 

V.  Walker  (14  Oh.  St   157)  56,58 

V.  Walker  (1  Mo.  App.  404)  443 

V.  Walker  (25  Mo.  367)  641 

V.  Wetherell  (6  Ves.  473)  1013 

t'.  Wigginton  (50  Ala.  579)  808 

V.  Williamson  (25  Ga.  549)  895 

v.  Wootten  (18  CJa.  119)  11.32 

V.  Young  (37  Te.x.  519)  198 

AVall  f.  Hinds  (4  Grav,  256)  605 
Wallace  r.  Dubois  (0.5  Md.  153)     940,  978,  980 

V.  Gatchell  (100  III.  315)  803,  825 

V.  Hall  (19  Ala.  307)  257,  10.59 

V.  Hawes  (79  Me.  177)  884 

V.  Long  (105  Ind.  522)  59 

V.  Nichols  (56  Ala.  321)  1065,  1081 

V.  Owen  (71  Ga.  544)  1220,  1223 

V.  Pomfret  (11  Ves.  542)  981 


P.ifre 

Wallace  r.  Keddick  (119  111.  151)     1214,  1226 

V.  Walker  (.37  (ia.  205)  .-,7() 

V.  Wallace  (23  N.  H.  148)    964,  967,  984, 

1104 
V.  Wallace  (3  N.  .F.  Eq.  616) 
Wallahan  c.  IngersoU  (117  111.  123) 

r.  I'eo|)le  (40  III.  103) 
AValler  r.  Logan  (5  15.  xMoii.  515) 
I'.  .Mardns(2l)  Mo.  25) 
r   Kav  (48  Ala.  4(i8) 
Wallis  r.  IL.dson  (2  Atk.  116) 
r.  Wallis  (114  .Mass.  510) 
V.  Wallis  (1  Winst.  78) 
Walls  V.  Stewart  (16  Pa.  St.  275) 

V.  Walker  (37  Cal.  424) 
Wallv  V.  Wallv  (41  Miss.  657) 
Wal|)ole  r.  Ai>tliorp  (L.  K.  4  Eq.  37) 

r.  Oxford  (3  Ves.  402) 
Walsh's  Will  (1  Tuck.  132) 
Walsh  (-•.  Kdmonson  (19  Mo.  142) 
V.  Kelly  (34  Pa.  St.  84) 
V.  Ketchum  (84  Mo.  427) 
V.  Lailin  (2  Dem.  498) 
V.  Mathews  (11  Mo.  131) 
V.  Reis  (50  III.  477) 
V.  Reis  (60  111.  277) 
V.  Sexton  (55  Harb.  251) 
Walston  V.  White  (5  Md.  297) 
Walter's  Will  (64  Wis.  487) 
Walter  )i.  Ford  (74  Mo.  195) 
V.  Radcliffe  (2  Des.  577) 
Walters  v.  Hill  (27  Grat.  388) 
V.  Jordan  (13  lied.  L.  361) 
V.  Nettleton  (5  Cush.  544) 
V.  Prestidge  {30  Tex.  65) 
r.  Ratlift(5  Hush.  575) 
Walton's  Estate  (8  DeG.  M.  &  G.  173) 
Walton  V.  Avery  (2  Dev.  &  B.  Eq.  405) 


495 
306 
336 
593 
255 
1182 
1.55 
484 
404 
966 
864,  1126 
180 
968 
56 
472 
1208 
250,  265 
609 
70 
961 
205,  262 
205 
120 
891 
60 
122 
843 
570 
227 
024 
808 
469,  4!t7 
882 
1166. 
1168 
631 
334 
1077 
955 
887,  890 
102,  965, 


V.  Bonham  (24  Ala.  513) 
I'.  Pearson  (85  N.  C.  34) 
V.  Reager  (20  Tex.  103) 
V.  Torrev  (1  Harr.  Ch.  259) 
V.  Walton  (7  J.  J.  Marsh.  58) 
V.  Walton  (7  John.  Ch.  258) 

967,  973,  974 
Walworth  v.  Abel  (52  Pa.  St.  370)  434 

V.  Ballard  (12    La.  An.  245)  429 

Wampler  v.  Wampler  (9  Md.  540)  52 

Wainsloy  v.  Wamslev  (26  W.  Va.  45)  685,  811 
Wankford  v.  Wankford  (1  Salk.  299)        383, 
507,  513,  789 
Wanzer  v.  Eldridge  (33  N.  J.  Eq.  511)     1057, 

1064 

Waples  r.  l\Iarsh  (19  Iowa,  381)  1022 

r.  Waples  (1  Harr.  392)  1010 

Warbass  v.  Armstrong  (10  N.  J  Eq.  263)  1163 

Ward's  Will  (35  N.  W.  R.  731)  109 

Ward,  In  re  (1  Hradf.  254)  534 

V.  Barrows  (■?.  Oh.  St.  241)  881 

V.  Hevill  (10  Ala    197)  419 

V.  Blackwood  (41  Ark.  295)  623 

V.  Cameron  (37  Ala.  691)  581 

V   Dodd  (41  N.  J.  Eq.  414)  944 

t\  Ford  (4  Redf.  34)  1164,1176 

V.  Kilpatrick  (85  N.  Y.  413)  604 

V.  Mavfield  (41  Ark.  94)  201 

V.  Oates  (43  Ala.  515)  492,  493 

V.  Thompson  (6  Gill  &  J.  349)  517 

r.  Tinkham  (.32  N.  W.  Rep.  901)  690 

V.  Turner  (7  Ired.  Eq.  73)  093 


cxxxii 


TABLE   OF   CASES. 


Page 


Ward  V.  Turner  (2  Ves.  Sr.  «1)  121  123  125 
V.  War.!  (120  111.11 1)  HO,  980,  l^J 


Page 
722 


8;i<j 

718,  873 

1081) 

171 

1146 

724 

930 

829 

553 

242,  202 

979 


231 


1109 
6 
109 
900 
396 
288 
417 
85 
10.32 
110.  267,  272, 
985,  986,  989 
103 
1000 


«.  Ward  (37  Mich.  2ij3) 
D.Ward  (105  N.  Y.  68) 
V.  Williams  (45  lex.  617) 

„.  Wolf  (56  Iowa,  465) 
Warden  v.  Hurts  (2  '^\ff>\\^\^^.^ 
Wardwell  v.  McDowel    (31  111.  364) 
Ware  v.  Fisher  (2^\'^ate^,  578) 

1).  Howlev  (e8  Iowa,  633) 

V   Jackson  (24  Me.  106) 

V.  Owens  (42  Ala.  212) 

r.  People  (19  111.  App.  196) 

V.  St.  Louis  Bagfiing  Co.  (47  Ala.  067)  .93 

V.  Wave  (8  Me.  42)  *' 

V.  Washington  ((!  hm.Ji  M-  V37) 
Wareham  «.  Sellers  (9  G.ll  &  J.  98 

Warley  t>.  Warley  (Bai.  Eq.  397)      908,  989, 

Warner  V.  Bates  (98  Mass.  274) 

V.  Beach  (4  Gray,  162) 
«.  Sprigs  (02  Md.  14) 
Warren  i'.  Carter  (92  Mo^288) 
V.  Farmer  (100  Ind.  593) 
V.  Hall  (0  Dana,  450) 
V.  Harding  (2  K.  I.  133) 
■y.  Hearne  (82  Ala.  .554) 
i-.  Morris  (4  Del.  Ch.  289) 

V.  Tavlor  (56  Iowa,  182) 

V.  Webb  (68  Me   133) 

«.  Williams  (25  Mo.  App.  22)  2-^i 

Wartnaby,  Goods  of  (4  Notes  of  C   4<6)  486 

Warwick  V.  Grevdle  (1  mull.  122)  5.J 

^,.  State  (5  Ind.  350)  1"J5 

Washburn  v.  Goodman  (17  Pick.  519)  284 

V.  Gould  (3  Story,  122)  J^-J* 

«.  Hale  (10  Pick.  429)          666,  708,  ll&.i 

V.  Sewall  (9  Met.  280)  a--^ 

..  VaaSteenwyk  (32  Mmn.  336)^^^2-2. 

V.  Washburn  (10  Pick.  374)   164  165, 169 

V.  Emery  (4  Jones  Eq.  32) 

V.  McCaughan  (34  Miss.  304) 

V  Sasser  (6  Ired.  Eq.  336) 
Wass  V.  Bucknam  (38  Me.  356) 
Wassell  V.  Armstrong  (35  Ark.  247) 

V.  Tunnah  (25  Ark.  101)      . 
Waterbury  ..  Netherland  (0  Hejsk.  512)    270 

AVaterhouse  v.  Bo^^'^e  O^^l/'i.,'^"-  ^°'    i?  o 
Waterman  v.  Alden  (115  111.  83)  1^- 

„.  Rail  (04  How.  Pr.  368) 
r.  Bigham  (2  Hill,  S.  C.  512) 
V.  Dockray  (78  Me.  139) 
V.  Dockrav  (79  Me.  149) 
r.  Hawkins  (63  Me.  156) 
Waters  v.  Collins  (.3  Dem.  3<4) 
V.  Crossen  (41  Iowa,  261) 
V.  Cnllen  (2  Bradf.  354) 
V.  Davis  (2  S.  W.  R.  695) 
r.  Engle  (53  Md.  179) 
V.  Howard  (1  Md.  Ch.  112) 


Waters  r.  Margerum  (60  Pa.  St.  39) 

r.  Ogden  (2  Doug.  45)  '"" 

f.Sticknev  (12  Allen,  1)  451   4J7 

,-.  Tazewell  (9Md.291) 

V.Williams  (38  Ala.  680) 

Watherell  r.  Howells  (1  ('ami>.  227) 

Watkiiis  V.  Adams  (32  Miss.  333) 

V.  Bevans  (ti  Md.  489) 

V.  Davis  (61  Tex.  414) 

V.  Donnellv  (88  Mo.  322) 

V.  Dorsett  (1  Bland  Ch.  5.30) 

V.  Romine  (106  Ind.  378) 

V.  Stewart  (78  Va.  Ill)  • 

V.  Young  (31  (irat.  84)     1217,  1218,  1222 

,,,  I  Watriss  V.  Bank  (124  Mass.  571)  0% 

61    Watrous  v.  Chalker  (7  Conn.  224)  816 

1214    Watson's  Appeal  (6  Pa.  bt.  505)  1158 

Watson  I'.  Blaine  (12  Serg.  &  R.  131) 


607,  962 

257 

598 

395,  440 

11.58 

207 

339 

1039 

761,  1170 

692,  708 


621 


V.  Bvrd  (53  Miss.  480) 

V.  Child  (9  Rich.  Eq.  129) 

V.  Glover  (77  Ala.  323) 

V.  His  Creditors  (58  Cal.  556) 

V.  Hutto  (27  Ala.  513) 

V.  Lyle  (4  Leigh,  236) 

i).  McClenahan(13  Ala.57) 

V.  Martin  (75  Ala.  506) 

V.  Mercer  (8  Pet.  88) 

V.  Milward  (2  Lee,  332) 

r.  Parker  (6  Beav.  283) 

V.  Pipes  (.32  Miss.  4.51) 

V.  Prestwood  (79  Ala.  416) 

V   Riskamire  (45  Iowa,  231) 

r.  Rose  (51  Ala.  292) 

V.  Stone  (40  Ala.  451) 

V.  Watson  (33  Beav.  574) 

T.  Watson  (10  Conn.  77) 

V.  Watson  (13  Conn.  83) 

V.  Watson  (58  Md.  442) 

,;.  Watson  (2  B.  Mon.  74) 
Watson  Soc.  v.  Johnson  (.58  Me.  i^JS) 
Watt  V.  Watt  (37  Ala.  543) 

V.  Watt  (3  Ves.  244) 

V.  White  (46  Tex.  338) 
Watterson's  Appeal  (95  ^-a-  St.  312) 
Watterson  v.  Watterson  (1  "ead   1) 
Wattles  r.  Hyde  (9  Conn  10)  10.55,  lOoO,  1144 


433,  1246 

880,  887 
571 
198 
326 
311 
11.54 
723 
202 
662 
782,  799 
68 
714 
609 
857 
699 
978 
1067 
276,  277 
821 
43 
944 
11.30 
516 
860 
268 
49 


1165 

1046 

1204,  1272 

277 

1146 

194 


1202,  1208 
549 


406 

855 

195,  206 

1271 

1121 

1005 

2.59 

700,  702, 

1083 

Wavmire  v.  Jetmore  (22  Oh  St  271)  22J 
Wead  V.  Cantwell  (36  Hun,  528)  354 

Wea^i?:::^G;Se5?  (O^a.  399)  1048,  1124 
Weathevford  v.  Tate  2  Slrobh.  Eq.  2( )  901 
WeSerhead  ..Field  (26  yt   665) 


Watts,  Goods  of  (1  Sw.  &  Tr.  .5..8) 
V.  Gavle  (20  Ala.  817) 
V.  Leggett(66  N.  C.  197) 
V.  Tavlor  (80  Va.  627) 
V  Watts  (38  Oh.  St.  480) 

Wav  V.  I'riest  (13  Mo.  App.  555) 
'v.  Wav  (42  Conn.  52) 

Wavland  v.  Crank  (79  Va.  602) 


743,  745    Weatherly  v.  Kier  (38  N.  J.  Eq.  87) 


554 

110,  1012 

986,  987 

1026 

502 

835 

336 

1016 


Weaver  v.  Chace  (5  R.  I.  356) 
V.  Gregg  (6  Oh.  547) 
V.  Low  (29  Ind.  57) 
V.  Norwood  (.59  Miss.  665) 
V.  Roth  (105  Pa.  St.  4(i8) 
t,.  Weaver  (109  111.225) 

Webb  v.  Burlington  (28  Vt.  188) 
V.  Day  (2  Dem.  459) 


1226 
1008 
518 
243 
186 
439 
434 
175,  183 
1002 
05 


TABLE   OF    CASES. 


CXXXUl 


Webb  V.  Dc  Beauvoisin  (31  Beav.  573)     1104 
V.  Difti-iih  (7  W.  -S:  8.  401)  57!) 

V.  Uve  (18  W.  Va.  37ij)  470 

V.  KfeiiiiiiK  (30  Ga.  808)  C'J,  70 

v.  Gross  (7'J  Me.  224)  IH'J 

V.  Hitcliius  (105  I'a.  St.  91)  8%,  8;t7 

V.  .loiies  (3(5  N.  J.  Ivi-   103)   104,  108,  074 
V.  Keller  (3'J  La.  An.  55)  108.) 

V.  Kellv  (!)  Sim.  40!))  1008 

V.  Needham  (1  Ad.l.  494)  521,  529 

V.  Russell  (3  T.  II.  31)3)  3:t0 

V.  Smii>soii  (105  Ind.  327)  1200 

V.  Smith  (40.\vk.  17)  203 

V  Stdlmaii  (2ii  Kan.  371)  11!)7 
V.  Townseud  (1  Tick.  21)  220 

V  Webb  (7  T.  B.  -Moil.  02(5)  48!) 
Webber  v.  Sullivan  (58  Iowa,  2G0)    3G,  47,  48 

V  Weblier  (0  Me.  127)  595,  1207 
V.  Webber  (1  Sim.  &  St.  311)  OOtJ 

Weber  v.  Noth  (51  Iowa,  375)  800 

r.  Short  (55  Ala.  311)  200 

Webster  v.  Calden  (50  Me.  204)  595 

V.  Campbell  (1  Allen,  313)  238 

1-.  Cooper  (14  How.  488)  900 

V.  Hale  (8  Ves.  410)  1005 

V.  Lowell  (139  Mass.  172)  021 

V  Jlerriam  (9  Conn.  225)  1244 
V.  Morris  (60  Wis.  360)        893,  902,  !»17, 

918,  922,  928,  932 
V.  Webster  (105  Mass.  538)  103 

V.  Webster  (10  Ves.  93)  421 

V.  Welton  (53  Conn.  183)  872,  890 

v.  Willis  (50  Tex.  408)  434.  1272 

Wederstrand's   Succession   (19   La.    An. 

494)  1144 

Weed  V.  Edmonds  (4  Ind.  408)        1037,  1047 

V.  Lermond  (33  Me.  492)  1130 

v.  Weed  (25  Cnn.  337)  3.30 

Weeks  v.  Cornwell  (104  N.  Y.  325)  808, 

874,  884 

V.  Gibbs  (9  Mass.  74)  386,  422 

V.  Gore  (3  P.  Wms.  184)  788 

V.  Hull  (19  Conn.  376)  807 

V.  Jewett  (45  N.  H.  540)  133,  518 

V.  Love  (19  Ala.  25)  751 

V.  Mcbeth  (14  Ala.  474)  91 

V.  Patten  (18  Me.  42)  500 

V.  Sowles  (58  Vt.  696)  1248 

V.  Weeks  (5  Ired.  Eq.  Ill)  639 

Weems  v.  Brvan  (21  Ala   302)  653.  605 

V.  Weem's  (19  Md.  334)  41,  75 

Weer  v.  Gand  (88  III.  490)  1193 

Wehr  (.-.  Brooks  ^21  III.  App.  115)  622 

Wehrle  v.  Wehrle  (39  Oh.  St.  365)  1077, 

1080,  1089 

WeiEtand's  Appeal  (28  Pa.  St.  471)  738 

Weimar  v   Fath  (43  X   ,T.  L.  1)  71!) 

Weir  V.  Chidester  (63  111.  453)  82 

V.  Fitzjrerald  (2  Bradf.  42)         43,  52,  472 

V.  Humphries  (4  Ired.  Eq,  264)  239 

V.  Mosher  (19  Wis.  311)  734 

r.  People  (78  III.  19 i)  1228 

V.  Smith  (02  Tex.  1)  949 

r.  Tate  (4  Ired.  Eq.  264)  699 

V.  Weir  (3  B.  Mon.  645)  825 

Weise  r.  Moore  (22  Mo.  App.  530)  301 

Weisne's  Appeal  (-39  Conn.  537)  1049 

Welborn  v.  Coon  (57  Ind.  270)  828 

Welch's  Succession  (36  La.  An.  702)  433 

Welch  V.  Adams  (63  N.  H.  344)  68 

V.  Anderson  (28  Mo.  293)  270 


Page 
Welch  r.  McGrath  (59  Iowa,  519)  108C 

Weld  V.  McClure  (9  Watts.  4!)5)  748 

Weldv's  Appeal  (102  Pa.  St.  454)        737,  739 
Well's  Will  (5Litt.  273)  498 

Wellhorn  v.  Uof,'ers  (24  Ga.  5.58)  1120 

WcIIlt  c.  Weller  (28  Barb.  588)  2-i.i 

Welles  t'.  Cowles  (4  Conn.  182)  640,  647 

Welliny  V.  Welling-  (3  Dem.  511)     1104,  117 1, 

1176 
Wellington  v.  Apthorp  (145  Ma-s.  6!l)  58 

WelUnau  v.  Lawrence  (15  Mass.  320)       1050, 

1053 

Wellmever's  Succession  (34  La.  An.  819)  196 

Wells  t-:  Avers  (5  S.  E.  K.,  Va.  21)  835 

V.  Child  (49  III.  465)  504 

V.  Doane  (3  Gray,  201)  i»22 

I'.  Miller  (45  III." 33)  805 

V.  Miller  (45  III.  382)  3G2,  385 

V.  Mills  (22  Tex.  302)  1056 

V.  Bohinson  (13  Cal.  133)  1160 

r.  Smith  (44  Miss.  296)  324,  341,  342.  814 

V.  Stearns  (35  Hun.  323)  497 

r.  Thompson  (13  Ala.  793)  276 

V.  Treadwell  (28  Miss.  717)  611 

V.  Tucker  (3  Binn.  366)        119,  121,  122, 

125,  126 

V.  Wells  (6  Ind  447)  25 

V.  Wells  (L.  K.  18  Eq.  504)  899 

V.  Wells  (35  .Miss.  638)  360 

V.  Wells  (4  T.  B.  Mon.  1.52)  93 

Welsch  V.  Belleville  Bank  (94111. 191)  873,  999 

Welsh,  In  re  (1  Kedf.  238)  49,  51,  484 

V.  Brown  (43  N.  J.  L.  37)  1005,  1006, 1007 

V.  Perkins  (8  Oh.  52)  1040 

r.  Welsh  (105  Mass.  229)       631,  632,  858 

Weltv  V.  Weltv  (8  Md.  15)  473 

Wendell  v.  i-'reuch  (19  N.  H.  205)  1145, 

1163,  1169 
Wentz's  Appeal  (106  Pa.  St.  301)  1002 

Werkheiser  v.  Werkheiser  (6  Watts  &  S. 

184)  83 

Wernick  r.  McMurdo  (5  Rand.  51)     745,  750 
Wernse  v.  McPike  (70  Mo.  249)  825 

Werts  V.  (Spearman  i22  S.  C.  200)  6-32 

Wertz's  Appeal  (69  Pa.  St.  173)  1097 

West's  Appeal  (64  Pa.  St.  180)  305,  311 

West,  Matter  of,  (40  Hun,  291)  576 

V.  Bank  of  Rutland  (19  Vt.  403)  859 

V.  Cochran  (104  Pa.  St.  482)       330, 1033, 

1037 
V.  Fitz  (109  Til.  425)  718 

V.  :SIoore  (8  East,  339)  599 

V.  Moore  (37  Miss.  114)  953 

V.  Shuttleworth  (2  M.  &  K,  684)  907 

V.  Sloan  (3  Jones  Eq.  102)  702 

r.  Smith  (8  How.  402)  1165,  1168 

V.  Thornburj,'h  (6  Blackf.  542)  34(i 

V.  Townsend  (12  Ind.  434)  1072 

V.  Waddill  (33  Ark.  575)  1085,  1086 

V.  West  (89  Ind.  52!))  938 

V.  West  (75  Mo.  204)  1125 

V.  Willbv  (3  Phillim.374)  404 

V.  Williams  (15  Ark.  682)  937 

V.  Wright  (98  Ind.  335)  10,56 

Westcott  V.  Cadv  (5  .John.  Ch.  334)  1001 

r.  Campbell" (11  R.  I.  378)  261 

Westertield  v.  Kimmer  (82  Ind.  365)  242 

V.  Westertield  (1  Bradf.  198)  1168 

Westerlo  v.  De  Witt  (36  N.  Y.  340)    119,  120. 

124 
Westfall  V.  Dungan  (14  Oh.  St.  276)         1056 


ex  XXIV 


TABLE   OF   CASES. 


Weston,  In  re  (91  N.  Y.  502) 
V.  Hi^'ht  (17  Me.  287) 
V.  Jiilinsoii  (48  liul.  1) 
V.  Muriiau  (4  Ind.  271) 
V.  Weston  (102  Muss.  514) 
V.  Weston  (125  ftlass.  208) 

Wethei-bee  v.  Chase  (57  Vt.  347) 


rage 

710 

120 

977,  979 

734,  730 

602 

1011 

1241 


Wetherhead  v.  Baskerville  (11  How.  U  S. 

329) 

Wetmore  v.  Parker  (52  N.  Y.  450)      469,  884 

Wetter  v.  Haversham  (60  Ga.  193)        37,  147 

V.  Walker  (62  Ga.  142)  949 

Wetzell  V.  Waters  (18  Mo.  396)  397 

Wliarrani  v.  \\  liarrani  (3  Sw.  &  Tr.  301)  483 

Wl.arton  r.  Legf^a-tt  (30  N.  C.  169)      169,  203 

V.  Marberrv  (3  Siieed,  603)  822 

V.  Taylor  (88  N.  ('.  230)  203 

Wheat  V.  'Fuller  (82  Ala.  572)  530,  508 

Wlieatland  v.  Dodge  (10  Met.  502)  897 

Wheatlev  r.  Badger  (7  I'a.  St.  459)  504 

V.  Calhoun  (12  Leigh,  264)  235,  236 

V.  Lane  (1  Saund.  216)  618,  792,  796, 

797 
V.  Martin  (6  Leigh,  62)  685 

Wheeler  v.  Addison  (54  Me.  41)  1002 

V.  Alderson  (3  Hagg.  574)  39 

V.  Arnold  (30  Mich.  304)  831 

t-.  B.  nt  (7  Pick.  61)  9a 

V.  Bolton  (66  Cal.  83)  1246 

V.  Breni  (33  Miss.  126)  1010 

V.  Clutterbuck  (52  N.  Y.  67)  154 

V.  Durant  (3  Kich.  Eq.  352)  61 

V.  Flovd  (24  S.  C.  413)  1029,  1270 

V.  Gotte  (24  Tex.  650)  337 

V.  Hathewav  (54  Mich.  547)        990,  1005 
r.  Joslin(63N.  H.  164)  820 

V.  Kirtland  (27  N.  J.  Eq.  534)  240 

V.  Morris  (2  Bosw.  524)  237 

D.  St.  J.  K.  K.  (31  Kan.640)  432 

V.  Smith  (9  How.  55)  932 

V.  Smith  (55  Mich.  355)  241 

r,  Wheeler  (9  Cow.  34)  734 

r.  Wheeler  (1  K.  I.  364)  108 

V.  Wheeler  (47  Vt.  637)  1220, 1223,  1226 
Wheelhouse  r.  Bryant  (13  Iowa,  100)  860 
Wheelock  v.  Pierce  (6  Cush.  288)  368 

Wheelwright  v.  Depevster  (1  John.  471)    452 
Whelan  v.  Keilly  (3  W.  Va.  597)  905 

Whistler  v.  Webster  (2  Yes.  Jr.  367)  500 

Whit  V.  Rav  (4  Ired.  L.  14)  432 

Whitaker  v.  (iroover  (54  Ga.  174)  830 

V.  Whitaker  (6  John.  112)  510 

V.  Whitaker  (12  Lea,  393)  746,  748 

Whitcomb  v.  Cook  (38  Vt.  477)  623 

V.  Reid  (31  Miss.  567)  18-^ 

White's  Estate  (53  Cal.  19)  547 

Succession  (2  La.  An.  9G4)  1196 

Will  (25  N.  J.  Eq.  501  94 

White,  Goods  of  (22  L.  Rep.  110)  85 

V.  Alexander  (73  N.  C.  444)  1157 

V.  Arndt  (1  Whart.  91)  606 

V.  Beaman  (96  N.  C.  122)  834 

V.  Bettis  (9  Heisk.  645)  610 

V.  Blake  (74  Me.  489)  3.36 

V.  Brown  (19  Conn.  577)  805 

V.  Bullock  (4  Abb.  Dec.  578)  1171 

1).  Bullock  (20  Barb.  91)  1171 

V.  Casten  (1  Jones  L.  193)  93 

V.  Christoplierson  (9  La.  An.  232)  696,  702 
V.  Clarke  (7  T.  B.  Mon.  640)  2.56 

V.  Cordwell  (L.  R.  20  Eq.  644)  1238 


Page 

774 

213 

229 

1138 

40 

824,  932 

829 

929 

827 

912,  919 

727,  912 

842 

l()i)8 

518,  520 

414,  415,  445 

1219 


White  V.  Corrico  (2  Met.  Ky.  232) 
V.  Curd  (5  S.  W.  K.  553) 
V.  (,'utler(17  Pick.  2-18) 
V.  Ditson  (140  Ma-s.  351) 
r.  Drjyer  (1  PhiUim.  84) 
V.  Eisk  (22  Conn.  31) 
V.  Fitzgerald  (19  Wis.  480) 
V.  Hale  (2  Coldw.  77) 
V.  Henlv  (54  Mo.  592) 
V.  Howard  (38  Conn.  342) 
r.  Howard  (46  N.  Y.  144) 
V.  Judson  (2  Root,  301) 
V.  Kauflmann  (06  Md.  89) 
V.  Lowe  (1  Redf.  376) 
f.  Maim  (26  Me.  361) 
V.  Moore  (23  S.  C.  456) 
V.  Palmer  (4  Mass.  147) 
V.  Plummer  (96  111.  394) 
V.  PuUev  (27  Fed.  R.  436) 
V.  Repto'n  (3  Curt.  818) 
V.  Riggs  (27  Me.  114) 
V.  Russell  (79  111.  155) 
1-.  Spaulding(50Micb.  22) 
V.  Story  (4.3  Barb.  124) 
V.  Swain  (3  Pick.  365) 
V.  Thompson  (79  Me.  207) 
r.  White  (52  Conn.  518) 
V.  White  (3  Dana,  374) 
r.  White  (4  Dev.  &  B.  401) 
V.  White  (30  Vt.  338) 
V.  AVillis  (7  Pick.  143) 
V.  Winchester  (0  Pick.  48) 
Whiteaker  r.  Vanschoiack  (5  Oreg.  113) 
Wniteliall  V.  Squire  (Carth.  103) 

V.  Squire  (Holt,  45) 
Whitehead  v.  Cade  (1  How.  Miss.  95) 
V.  Ccmklin  (48  Iowa,  478) 
V.  Gibbons  (10  N.  J.  Eq.  230) 
V.  McBride  (73  Ga.  741) 
Whitehurst  r.  Dey  (90  N.  C.  542) 

V.  Harker  (2lred.  Eq.  292) 
Whiteman  v.  ^^wem  (71  Ind.  530) 
Whitenack  v.  Stryker  (2  N.  J.  Eq.  8) 


207 

643 

85 

342 

631 

580 

811 

1129,  12.55 

757 

874 

1137 

992,  994 

956 


229 

974 

235 

424 

426 

828 

206 

1103 

768,  770 

846 

639 

171 

27, 

38,41 

444 

344, 

1123 

1023 

817 

832 

28 


Whiteside's  Appeal  (23  Pa.  St.  114) 
Whiteside  v.  W  hiteside  (20  Pa.  St.  473) 

Whitesides  v.  Barber  (24  S.  C.  373), 
V.  Cannon  (23  Mo.  457) 

V.  Green  (04  N.  C.  307) 
Whitfield  v.  Hurst  (3  [red.  Eq.  242) 
Whitford  V.  Panama  R.  Co.  (23  N.  Y.  465)  630 
Whithed  V.  Mallorv  (4  Cush.  138)  244 

Whiting  v.  Whiting  (64  Md.  157)        739,  740 
Whitlev  V.  Alexander  (73  N.  C.  444)        1159 

V.  Stephenson  (38  Miss.  113)         177,  178 
Whitlock  V.  Whitlock  (1  Dem.  160)  1014 

Whitlow  V.  Echols  (78  Ala.  206)      1245,  1246 
Whitman  v.  Morey  (63  N.  H.  448)  48 

V.  Watson  (16  Me.  461)  1242 

Whitmire  v.  Wright  (22  S.  C  446)     231,  232 
Whitmore  v.  Foose  (1  Demo,  159) 

V.  Johnson  (10  Humph.  610) 

V.  Oxborrow  (2  Y.  &  Coll.  13) 


QQg 

330,  1090 
799 


v.  San  Francisco  Union  (50  Cal.  145)  861 


Whitney  v.  Coapman  (39  Barb.  482) 
V.  Munro  (4  Edw.  Ch.  5) 
V.  Peddicord  (03  111.  249) 
V.  Porter  (23  111.  445) 
V.  Twombly  (136  Mass.  145) 
r.  Wheeler  (116  Mass.  490) 


739 
1123 

708 

1034 

44 

118 


TABLE   OF   CASES. 


CXXXV 


Page 
Wliitnev  v.  Wliitnev  (14  Mass.  88)  G47 

Whittakeri'.  Whittaker(10Lea. 'j;J)  371,  1184 
r.  Wrij^ht  (35  Ark.  511)  1144 

Whitted  V.  Webb  (2  Uev  &  15.  Ivi.  442)    1145 
AVhitteinore  v.  Cutter  (1  Gall.  42ii)  635 

V.  Uu.sseli  (80  Me.)  il'.tit 

Whittier  V.  Wateiinuii  (75  Me.  409)  1000 

Whittle  V.  Samuels  (54  Ga.  548)  20(i 

Whittlesey  v.  Brohammer  (31  Alo.  98)     12i;i, 

12tl2 

Whitworth  V.  Oliver  (39  Ala.  28r))      550,  584 

Whorton  V.  Morajiiie  (59  Ala.  G41)  1124 

V.  Moragne  (62  Ala.  201 )       329,  992,  993 

Whvte  V.  Rose  .'3  (}.  15.  493)  365 

WiJker  V.  Rav  (118  111.  472)  878,  901 

Wickersham's  Appeal  (64  i'a.  St.  G7)       1170 

Wiekham  V.  Page  (49  Mo.  526)  748 

Wickwire  v.  Chapman  (15  Barb.  302)  527,  529 

Widger,  (ioods  of  (3  Curt.  55)  531 

Wiece  V.  Marbut  (55  Ga.  613)  220 

Wier  V.  Davis  (4  Ala.  442)  695 

Wiesner  v.  Zaun  (39  Wis.  188)  145 

Wiggin  V.  Buzzell  (58  X.  H.  329)  204 

V.  Plumer  (31  N.  H.  251)  589 

V.  Superior  Court  (68  Cal.  398)  1130 

V.  Svvett  (6  Met.  194)  507,  6.38,  995, 

1151,  1194 

Wiggins  V.  Lovering  (16  Mass.  429)  841 

17.  Lovering  (9  Mo.  262)  843 

Wightman  r.  Townroe  (1  M.  &  Sel.  412)   283 

Wiijle  V.  Wigle  (6  Watts,  522)  125 

Wiglev  I'.  Beauchamp  (51  Mo.  544)  257 

Wikofi's  Appeal  (15  Pa.  St.  281)    65,  94,  101. 

113,  469 

Wilber's  Application  (.52  Wis.  295)  268 

Wilber  V.  Wilber  (52  Wis.  298)  268 

Wilbourn  v.  Shell  (.59  Miss.  205)  90,  481 

V.  Wilbourn  (48  Miss.  38)  422 

Wilbraham  v.  Ludlow  (99  Mass.  587)  443 

Wilbur  r.  Gilmore  (21  Pick.  250)  618 

V.  Hutto  (25  S.  C.  246)  548 

V.  Maxam  (133  Mass.  541)  354 

Wilbv  V.  Phinnev  (15  Mass.  Ill)  286 

Wdcix's  Appeal"  (54  Conn.  320)  1208 

Wilcox  V.  Matteson  (53  Wis.  23)  121 

V.  Powers  (6  JIo.  145)  816 

V.  Randall  (7  P.arb.  633)  233 

V.  Rootes  (1  Wa«h.  Va.  140)  105 

V.  Smith  (26  P.arb.  316)     730,  1151,  1260 

V.  State  (24  Tex.  544)  863 

V.  Wilcox  (13  Allen,  252)    200,  966,  989, 

1104 

V.  Wilcox  (48  Barb.  327)  823 

Wilcoxon  V.  Donellv  (>J0  N.  C.  245)  1243 

V.  Reese  (03  Md.  542)  395,  725 

Wild's  Case  (Co.  pt.  6,  *17)  897 

Wild  V.  Brewer  (2  Mass.  570)  110 

V.  Davenport  (48  N.J.  L.  129)    282,  283 

Wilder  v.  Aldrich  (2  R.  L  518)  639 

V.  Rannev  (95  N.  Y.  7)  728 

Wilderuian  v,  Baltimore  (8  Md.  551)  925 

■Wildridge  v.  Patterson  (15  Mass.  148)         576 

Wile  V.  Wright  (32  Iowa,  451)  782 

Wilev's  Appeal  (84  Pa.  St.  270)  340 

Wiley  V.  Brainerd  (11  Vt.  107)  576 

V.  Grav  (36  Miss.  510)  609 

V.  Wlute  (3  Stew.  &  P.  355)  1050 

V.  Wilev  (63  N.  C.  182)  1040 

Wilkerson  v.  Allen  (67  Mo.  502)  1060 

V.  Gordon  (48  Ark.  360)  809 

V.  Wootten  (28  Ga.  568)  734 


Page 

WilUcv's  Appeal  (108  Pa.  St.  .567)  524 

Wilkins  V.  Kllett    9  Wall.  740)  364 

V.  Harris  (Winst.  \'.(\.  41  )  570,  .579 

r.  Wilkins  (43  X..).  Ivi.  .595)  1222 

Wilkinson  v.  Chew  (.54  Ga.  002)  991 

r.  Leland  (2  Pet.  627)  467 

t'.  I'arish  (3  Pai.  6.53)  232 

V.  Winne  (15  Minn.  1.59)  842 

Wilks  r.  Slaughter  (49  Ark.  235)  684 

Will  of  .  For  cases  under  "  Will  of," 

see  the  names  of  the  parties. 
Willamette  Co.  v.  Gordon  (6  Or.  175)         502 
Willard's  Appeal  (65  Pa.  St.  265)  340 

Willard  r.  Van  Leeuwen  (56  Mich.  15)       861 
r.  Willard  (6  Baxt.  297)  224 

Willeford  v.  Watson  (12  Heisk.  476)         1228 
Willet  v.  Sandford  (1  Ves.  Sr.  186)  910 

Willett's  Appeal  (.50  Conn.  330)  496 

Willett  v.  Brown  (65  Mo.  1-38)  234 

V.  Malli  (65  Iowa,  675)  1029 

William  &  Mary  College  v.  Powell  (12 

Grat.  372)  609 

Williams's  Appeal  (7  Pa.  St.  259)      518,  530, 

535,  571 
Appeal  (106  Pa.  St.  116)  612 

Case  (18  Abb.  Pr.  350)  579 

Succession  (22  La.  An.  94)  580 

Succession  (26  La.  An.  207)  570 

Williams,  Ex  parte  (13  Rich.  77)  310 

Matter  of  (5  Dem.  292)  527 

Matter  of  (44  Hun,  67)  526,  .527 

V.  American  Bank  (4  Met.  Mass.  317)  865 
V.  Averv  (38  Ala.  115)  609 

V.  Belden  (1  Root,  464)  846 

V.  Benedict  (8  How.  107)  374,  863 

V.  Brad  lev  (7  Heisk.  54)  1080 

V.  Breedon  (1  Bos.  &  Pul.  329)  617 

V.  Campbell  (46  Miss.  57)  699,  704 

V.  Childress  (25  ^liss.  78)  1037,  1047 

V.  Claiborne  (7  Sm.  &  M.  488)  607 

V.  Conlev  (20  III.  634)  681 

V.  Courtney  (77  Mo.  587)  244 

1).  Cowden'(13Mo.  212)  961 

I'.  Cox  (3  Edw.  Ch.  178)  239 

V.  Crary  (8  Cow.  24(i)  982 

V.  Cushing  (34  Me.  370)  1012 

V.  Edwards  (94  i\Io.  447)  830,  836 

V.  Elv(13  AVis.  1)  595,693 

V.  Ewing  (31  Ark.  229)  1272 

V.  Goude  (1  Hagg.  577)  46 

V.  Ilale  (71  Ala:83)  228 

V.  Holmes  (9  Md.  281)  1232 

V.  Hutchinson  (3  X.  Y.  312)  823 

V.Johnson  (112  III.  61)  890 

V.  Jones  (14  Bush.  418)  494 

V.  Jones  (1  Russ.  Ch.  517)  9.37 

r.  Lee(47  Md.  321)  .  42 

V.  McDonald  (13  Tex.  322)  1077 

V.  McKinnev  (34  Kan.  514)  873 

V.  Maitland"(l  Ired.  Eq.  92)  739 

V.  Marshall  (4  G.  &  J.  376)  702,  703 

V.  Mason  (23  Ala.  488)  1070 

V.  Maull  (20  Ala.  721)  608 

V.  Moblev  (38Ga.  241)  1013 

r.  Moore  (9  Pick.  432)  366 

V.  Jlorehouse  (9  Conn.  470)     651,  653,  666 
V.  NefE  (52  Pa.  St.  326)  946 

V.  Xichol  (47  Ark.  254)  1099.  1100 

V.  Pearson  (38  Ala.  299)  921,  923,  928,  032 
f.  Penn  (12  Mo.  App.  393)  781.  8V) 

V.  Penns_vlvania  Railroad  (9  Phil.  298)  369 


CXXXVl 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


Pa!,'e 

Williams  v.  Perrin  (73  Ind.  57)  1061 

V.  Pettici-ew  (02  Mo.  400)  UG9,  1138,  1158, 

1188 
t).  Price  (11  Cal.  212)  1130 

V.  Price  (21  Ga.  507)  77fi 

V.  Partly  (0  Pai.  IGG)  8-21 

V.  Hatclift-  (42  Miss.  145)  1043 

V.  Hhudes  (81  HI.  571)  1084,  1087 

V.  Hobiiisoii  (03  Tex.  576)  320 

V.  Kubiiisoii  (42  Vt.  058)      37,  1203,  1208 
V.  Pdbsdii  (0  Oh.  St.  510)  24'J 

V.  Saunders  (5  Cold.  60)  77,  1103 

V.  Shelbv  (2  Or.  144)  553 

■y.  Sims  "(8  Port.  579)  791 

V.  Sloan  (75  Va.  137)  640.  041 

V.  Stonestreet  (3  Puind.  5.59)        823,  1213 
V.  Storrs  (0  John.  Ch.  353)  364 

V.  Stratton  (10  Sm.  &  M.418)  1043,  1151 
V.  Tobias  (37  Ind.  345)  570 

V.  Verne  (08  Tex.  414)  555 

V.  Wilkins  (2  Phill.  100)  529 

V.  Williams  (49  Ala.  439)  1030 

V.  Williams  (14  Pae.  R.,  Cal.  394)  352,  353 
V.  Williams  (2  Uev.  Eq.  09)  1039 

V.  Williams  (5  Gray,  24)  171 

V.  Williams  (15  Lea,  438)  822 

V.  Williams  (78  Me.  82)  259 

V.  Williams  (5  Md.  407)  375 

V.  Williams  (142  Mass.  515)  100 

V.  Williams  (43  Miss.  430)  1157 

V.  Williams  (79  N.  C.  417)  673 

V.  Williams  (85  N.  C.  313)  1088 

V.  Williams  (55  Wis.  300)  704 

V.  AVilson  (4  Sandf.  Ch.  379)  292 

V.  Worthington  (49  Md.  572)  877 

Williamson's  Appeal  (94  Pa.  St.  231)  340,  344 
Succession  (3  La.  An.  201)  439,  517 

Williamson  v.  Anthony  (47  Mo.  299)  787,  821. 

822 
V.  Branch  Bank  (7  Ala.  906)  371,  693 
V.  Fontain  (7  liaxt.  212)  290 

V.  Furbush  (31  Ark.  539)  390 

V.  Casque  (24  S.  C.  100)  262 

V.  Hill  (6  Port.  184)  1128 

V.  Howell  (4  Ala.  693)  800 

V.  McCrarv  (33  Ark.  470)  847 

V.  Mason  (23  Ala.  488)  1140 

V.  Norwitch  (Stv.  337)  426 

V.  Wilkins  (14  &a.  410)  1100 

V.  Williamson  (18  B.  Mon.  329)  901 

V.  Williamson  (6  Paige,  298)     985,  1000, 

1007 

V.  Williamson  (3  Sm.  &  M.  715)        1046 

Willini?  V.  Perot  (5  Eawle,  204)     374,  405,753 

WillisV  Farley  (24  Cal.  490)  810, 12.50 

V.  Ferguson  (59  Tex.  172)  1089 

V.  Foster  (65. Ga.  82)  1080 

V.  Jenkins  (.30  Ga.  167)  897 

V.  Jones  (42  Md.  422)  518 

V.  Loan  (2  T.  B.  Mon.  141)  828 

V.  Roberts  (48  Me.  257)  639,  941 

r.  Sharp  (43  Hun,  4.34)  689 

V.  Smith  (05  Tex.  050)  632 

r.  Smith  (60  Tex.  31)  732 

V.  Watson  (5  111.  64)  888 

V.  Willis  (9  Ala.  330)  1153 

Willoughbv  V.  McCluer  (2  Wend.  608)      669 

Wills  V.  Cowper  (2  Ohio,  312)  393 

V.  Dunn  (5  Grat.  384)  1189 

Willson  V.  Bergin  (28  N.  H.  96)  1049 

V.  Tyson  (61  Md.  575)  968,  988 


Page 

Willson  V.  Whitfield  (38  Ga.  269)  544 

Wilmerding  v.  McKesson  (28  Hun,  184)     738 

V.  McKes.son  (103  N.  Y.  329)  738 

Wilmington  v.  Sutton  (6  Iowa,  44)  183 

Wilson's  Appeal  (99  Pa.  St.  545)  47,  49 

Appeal  (115  Pa.  St.  95)  737,738 

Instate  (2  Pa.  St.  325)  392 

Estate  (15  Phila.  528)  986 

Wilson,  In  re  (103  N.  Y.  374)  76,  477 

In  re  (8  Wis.  171)  92,  94 

V.  Arrick  (4  MaeArthur,  228)  745 

I'.  Arrick  (112  U.  S.83)  745 

V.  Baptist  Society  (10  Barb.  308)        1155 

V.  Branch  (77  Va.  05)  258 

V.  Brown  (21  Mo.  410)  1049,  1198 

V.  Bynum  (92  N.  C.  717)  1024,  1143 

V.  Cochran  (31  Tex.  077)  181,  905 

V.  Cox  (49  Miss.  538)  208 

V.  Crook  (17  Ala.  59)  1022 

V.  Davis  (37  Ind.  141)  421,  423,  1205 

V.  Dibble  (10  Fla.  782)  397 

V.  Doster  (7  Ired.  F:q.  231)  693 

V.  Frazier  (2  Humph.  30)     439,  517,  570, 

571 
V.  Fridenburg  (19  Fla.  401)  195,  200,  208 
V.  Fridenberg  (21  Fla.  386)  195,  267 

V.  Fridenberg  (22  Fla.  114)  757 

r.  Fritts(32N.  J.  Eq.  59)  1240 

V.  Hastings  (06  Cal.  243)  1035 

V.  Hetterick  (2  Bradf.  427)  472 

V.  Holt  (83  Ala.  528)  1023 

V.  Hoss  (3  Humph.  142)  571 

V.  Hudson  (4  Harr.  168)        414,  415,  427 
v.  Imboden  (8  La.  An.l40)  566 

V.  Keeler  (2  Chip.  Vt.  16)  601 

V.  Kcllv  (16  S.  C.  210)      150,  1237,  1238 
V.  KellV  (21  S.  C.  535)  1222 

V.  Knublev  (7  East,  128)  1201 

V.  Leishman  (12  Met.  310)  1122 

V.  Lineberger  (88  N.  C.  410)  677 

V.  Long  (12  S.  &  R.  58)  795 

V.  McCarty  (55  Md.  277)  1129,  1131 

V.  McLenaghan  (1  INIcMul.  Eq.  35)      255 
V.  Miller  (30  Md.  82)  1085 

V.  Miller  (1  Pat.  &  H.  353)        1214,  1240 
V.  Mitchell  (101  Pa.  St.  495)     30,  43,  44, 

49,  52 
V.  Moran  (3  Bradf.  172)  49 

V.  Odell  (.58  Mich.  553)  918 

V.  O'Leary  (L.  R.  12  Eq.  525;  aff'd 

L   R.  7  Ch.  App.  448)  970 

V.  Paul  (8  Sim.  63)  780 

V.  Perry  (29  W    Va.  169)      920,  928,  932 
1'.  Piper  (77  Ind.  437)  1100 

V.  Proctor  (28  Minn.  13)  215,  217 

V.  Rine  (1  Harr.  &  J.  138)  990 

V.  Rose  (3  Cr.  C.  C.  371)  1140 

V.  Rousseau  (4  How.  U.  S.  646)  634 

V.  Shearer  (9  Met.  504)  759,  705 

V.  Slade  (2  Harr.  &  J.  281)  601 

V.  Soper  (13  B.  Mon.  411)  285 

V.  Staats  (33  N.  J.  Eq.  524)  710 

V.  Thompson  (26  Minn.  299)  1052 

V.  White  (2  Dev.  Eq.  29)  1080 

V.  White  (109  N.  Y.  59)    1030, 1031, 1080 
V.  Wilson  (1  Cr.  C.  C.  255)  785 

V.  Wilson  (3  Phillim.  543)  99 

V.  Wilson  (3  G.  &  J.  20)  1165 

V.  Wilson  (54  Mo.  213)  385,  426 

Wilt  V.  Bird  (7  Blackf.  2-58)  794 

V.  Cutler  (38  Mich.  189)  494 


TABLE   OF   CASES. 


CXXXVU 


Wiltl.aiik's  Appeal  (G4  Pa.  St.  25G)  10(14  ; 

Wilton  V.  Eaton  (127  Ma.ss.  174)  7'J.j  ' 

VViltsic  V.  Shaw  (Km  N.  Y.  iUl)  lOM 

Wiiibivn  V.  Kiiij;  (-35  Miss.  157)  11"27 

WiiichcT  V.  Slirew.sbuiv  {'-i  HI.  283)  5:J7 

W.ixiiL'stev  V.  Forster  (3  Cash.  .3GC)     880,  8.H) 
V.  Holmes  (138  Mass.  540)  2(J5 

WliKUatt  V.  Sharland  (L.  K.  2  P.  &  D. 

217)  531 

Wiiulell  V.  Hudson  (102  Iiid.  521)  33;) 

Windsor  v.  Bell  (01  Ga.  071)    513,  741,  1012, 

1014 

Wineland's  Appeal  (12  Atl.  R.  301)  04 

Wiutield  V.  Burton  (79  N.  C.  388)  1271 

Win;^  r.  Aii;;rave  (8  H.  L.  183)  440,  447 

V.  Meivliant  (57  Me.  383)  124 

Wingate  i-.  Pool  (25  111.  118)      048,  849,  1158 

V.  Wallis  (5  S.  &  M.  249)  342 

V.  Wheat  (0  La.  An.  238)  300 

V.  Wooten  (5  Sm.  &  M.  245)  574 

Wingeiter  v.  Wiiinerter  (71  Cal.  105)       1028 

Winkle  v.  Winkle  (8  Dreg.  l!)3)  1123 

Winkler  r.  Winkk-r  (18  W.  Va.  455)  270,  277 

'^    "'  8i)4 

570 

032 

489 

602 

021 

578,  053 

1080 

923 

75 

032 

1237 

1031 

1247 

303, 

309 


W  nkley  v  K.inie  (32  N.  H.  208) 
Winn's  Siicce*  ion  (27  La.  An.  087) 
Winn  V.  Barne  t  (3i  Miss.  053) 

t'.  Bob  (3  leigh,  140) 

V.  Ingilby  (5  B.  &  Aid.  025) 
Winningham"  r.  Crouch  (2  .Swan,  170) 
Winship  V.  Ba-s  (12  Mass.  199) 
Winslow  y.  Crowell  (32  Wis.  039) 

V.  (,'nniniings  (3Cush.  358) 

V.  Kimb  11  (23  Me.  493) 
Winsnii  h  v.  Winsmith  (15  S.  C.  Oil) 
Wiiisor,  .Mat  er  of  (5  Deni.  340) 
Winsttni  V.  MeLendon  (43  Miss.  254) 

V.  Street  (2  Pat.  &  Heath,  109) 
Winter  v.  Winter  (Walker,  Miss.  211) 


Winterhalter  v.  Workmen  (17  Pac.  R.  1)  047 

Winternuite's  Will  (27  N.  J.  Eq.  447)  43 

Wintennute  v.  Kidington  (1  Fisher,  239)  035 

v.  Snvder  (3  X.  J.  Eq.  489)  901 

V.  Wilson  (28  N  .J.  Eq.  437)  43 

Winters  r.  Elliott  (1  Lea,  070)  1082 

Winton's  Appeal  (111  Pa.  St.  387)  348 

Winton  I'.  Eldridge  (3  Head,  301)  8.39 

Wippeler,  In  re  (2  Dem.  020)  1000 

Wire  V.  Wvnian  (93  Ind.  392)  1075 

Wisdom  t'.'Buckiier  (31  La.  An.  52)  1089 

V.  Parker  (31  La.  An.  52)  329 
Wise  V.  Foote  (81  Kv.  10)                       44,  40 

V.  O'.Mall.'v  (6)  Tex.  588)  344 

V.  Willi.nn^  (72  Cal.  544)  845 

Wiseman  v.  Beekwith  (90  Ind.  185)  220 

V.  Wiseman  (73  Ind.  112)  227 

Wiser  v.  Blachlv  (1  John.  Ch.  007)  5-54 

Wisham  v.  Lippincott  (9  X.  J.  E(i.  353)  287 

Wisner's  Estate  (20  .Mich.  442)  1105 

Wistar's  Appeal  (115  Pa.  St.  241)  1197 

Estate  (13  Phiia.  242)  1230 

Wistar  ;•.  Scott  (105  Pa.  St.  200)  903 

Wiswall  V.  Hall  (3  Pai.  313)  240 

Wiswell  r.  Wiswell  (35  Minn.  371)  385 

Withee  v.  Rowe  (45  Me.  571)  341 

Withers's  Appea.  (13  Pa.  St.  582)  1147 

Appeal  (14  S.  &  R.  185)  715 

Withers  v.  Baird  (7  Watts,  227)  252 

V.  .Jenkinrt  (14  S.  C.  597)  270 

V.  Pattersrn  (27  Tex.  491)  1048 

Witherspoou  v.  lUewett  (47  Miss.  570)  832 


Page 

Withorspoon  v.  Watts  (18  S.  C.  .390)    273,  580 

Withint.Mi,  In  re  (7  Mo.  Ai)p.  575)  1138 

V.  Withiiiton  (7  Mo.  589)  473 

Witman  v.  Lex  (17  Serg.  &  R.  88)  921 

f.  Norton  (0  Binn.395)  1104 

Witt  V.  Elmore  (2  Bail.  .595)  420 

Witter  I'.  Biscoe  (13  Ark.  422)  249 

I'.  Mntt  (2  Conn.  07)  113 

Witters  v.  Foster  (20  Fed.  Rep.  737)  020 

Witthaus  V.  Schack  (105  N.  Y.  332)  242, 

248,  253 
Witzel  r.  Pierce  (22  Ga  112)  500 

Woehrlin  r.  Schafier  (17  Mo.  App.  442)  070 
Woerther  v.  .Miller  (13  Mo.  App.  507)  211 
Wohlieii  r.  Speck  (18  Mo.  .301)  1007 

Wolf  V.  Hanks  (41  Ark.  104)  331,  1157 

V.  Bolinger(G2  111.  3(18)  90 

V.  Ogdcn  (00  111.  224)  214,  1025, 1077 

V.  Robinson  (20  Mo.  459)  1043 

I'.  Wolf  (07  III.  55)  2)8 

Wolfe  V.  Kable  (107  Ind.  .505)  1218,  1224 

V.  Lvnch  (2  Dem.  010)  348 

V.  Van  Nostrand  (2  N.  Y.  430)  949 

Wolfersberger  v.  Biicher  (10  S.  &  R.  10)  828 
Wolff  V.  Schaeffer  (74  Mo.  154)  547,  548 

V.  Schaffer  (4  Mo.  App.  307)  547,  806 

V.  Wohlien  (32  Mo.  124)  1049 

Wolffe  V.  Eberlein  (74  Ala.  99)  407 

Woltinger  i'.  For.sman  (0  Pa.  St.  294)  559 

Wollaston  r.  King  (L.  R.  8  Eq.  105)  1016 

Womack's  Succession  (29  La.  An.  577)  099 
Womack  v.  Bo\d  (31  Miss.  443)  183,  185 

V.  Womack  (2  La.  An.  339)  357 

Wood's  Appeal  (92  Pa.  St.  379)  093,  734 

Estate  (1  Ashm.  314)  088,  701 

Estate  (.30  Cal.  75)  880 

Wood,  In  re  (71  Mo.  023)  1128 

V.  Brown  (34  N.  Y.  337)  705,  739,  740,  8:34 
V.  Bvington  (2  Barb.  Ch.  387)  1038 

V.  Chetwood  (27  N.  J.  Eq.  311)  507 

V.  Cosbv  (76  Ala.  5.57)    384,  410,  43.5,  994 
V.  Gaviion  (Amb.  395)  605 

V.  Goodridge  (0  Cush.  117)  732 

V.  Johnson  (13  111.  App.  548)     1193,  1198 
V.  Lee  (5  T.  B.  Mon.  50)  1153 

V.  McChesnev  (40  Barb.  417)      330,  1089 
V.  Matthews"(.53  Ala.  1 )  502 

r.  Morsian  (50  Ala.  397)  261,  262 

V.  Mvrick  (10  Minn.  494)  342 

r.  MVrick  (17  Minn.  408)  707 

V.  Roane  (35  La.  An   805)  58,  81 

V.  Savage  (2  Doug.  Jlich.  310)  010 

V.  Simmons  (20  Mo.  363)  041 

V.  Sparks  (1  D.  &  B.  389)      410,  51-3,  718 
V.  Stone  (.39  N.  H.  572)  324,  345 

V.  Tallman  (1  N.  J.  L.  15-3)         341,  1140 
V.  Tnnnicliff  (74  N.  Y.  38)  68,5,  811 

r.  Vpndenbnrgh  (0  Pai.  277)         985,  987 
V.  Warden  (20  Oh.  518)  611 

V.  Washburn  (2  Pick.  24)  552 

V.  Weightman  (L.  R.  13  Eq.  434)         790 
V.  White  (32  Me.  340)  893 

V.  Williams  (61  Mo.  0.3)  548,  549 

V.  Wood  (4  Pai.  299)  543,  545 

V.  Wood  (5  Pai.  596)  492 

Woodard  v.  Mich.  R.  R.  (10  Oh.  St.  121)  630 
Woodbem-  r.  Mather.'son  (19  Fla.  778)  231 
Woodbridge  v.  Woodbridge  (70  Ga.  733)  185 
Woodburn  r.  Woodburn  (14  N.  E.  58)  122 
Woodbury  v.  Hammond  (54  Me.  332)  1194 
V.  Obear  (7  Gray,  467)  35 


CXXXVlll 


TABLE   OF   CASES. 


Page 

Woodburv  v.  Woodbury  (58  N.  H.  44)      101 

Wooden  v.  Cowles  (11  Conn.  202)  SOU 

Woodtill  V.  Patton  (7fi  Ind.  575)  89,  'J4 

Woodfin  II.  McNealv  ("J  Ma.  250)  050 

Woodfolk  f.  Beatlv  (18  Ga.  52U)  i'U 

Woodford  V.  Stephens  (51  Mo.  443)  012 

Woodyate  v.  Field  (2  Hare,  211)  7'J'J 

Woodiiouse  V.  Phelps  (51  Conn.  521)  434 

Woodhiil!  V.  Longstreet  (18  N.  J.  L.  405)  233 

Woodin  V.  Baalev  (13  Wend.  453)  811 

Woodlief  V.  Merritt  (90  N.  ('.  220)  354 

Woodman  i,'.  Howe  (50  N.  H.  453)  433 

Woodruff  V.  Lounsberry    (40   N.  J.  Eq. 

545)  708,  1159 

V.  Migeon  (46  Conn.  236)  976 

t;.  Pleasants  (81  Va.  37)  899 

V.  Scliultz  (49  Iowa,  430)  359 

V.  Woodruff  (17  Abb.  Pr.  165)  1136 

V.  Woodruff  (3  Dem.  505)  345 

V.  Woodruff  (32  Ga.  358)  898 

Woods  V.  Elliott.  (49  Miss.  168)  841,  847 

V.  McCann  (3  Ala.  01)  853 

V.  Monroe  (17  Mich.  238)  330,  1043, 

1040,  1089 

V.  Ridley  (27  Miss.  119)  489, 1155 

V.  State  (10  Mo.  698)  554 

V.  Woods  (2  Bav,  476)  223 

V.  Woods  (1  Met.  512)  945 

Woodson  V.  Pool  (19  Mo.  340)  609,  612 

Woodward's  Appeal  (38  Pa.  St.  322)  340 

Woodward  v.  Darcv  (1  Plowd.  184)     786,  789 

V.  Howard  (13"Wis.  557)  803 

V.  James  (44  Hun,  95)  902 

V.  Lincoln  (9  Allen,  239)  215,  346 

V.  Woodward  (2  Rich.  Eq.  23)  202 

Woodworth's  Estate  (31  Cal.  595)      968,  987, 

1105 

Wood  worth,  Matter  of  (5  Dem.  156)  1233 

V.  Hall  (1  Woodb.  &  Min.  248)  367 

V.  Sherman  (3  Storv,  171)  634 

V.  Wilson  (50  N.  H.  220)  1200 

Woodyard  v.  Threlkeld  (1  A.  K.  Marsh. 

10)  397 

Wooldridge  v.  Watkins  (3  Bibb,  349)         724 

V.  Wiikins  (3  How.  Miss.  300)  290 

Woolfork  V.  Sullivan  (23  Ala.  548)     427,  684 

Woolley  V.  Clark  (5  B.  &  Aid.  744)   384,  409, 

424,  586 

1'.  Gordon  (3  Phillim.  314)  407 

V.  I'emberton  (41  N.  J   Eq.  394)         1039 

V.  Preston  (82  Kv.  415)  950 

V.  Schrader  (116 "ill.  29)  1010 

Woolridpe  v.  Page  (1  Lea,  135)  1029 

Wnolstone's  Appeal  (51  Pa.  St.  4.52)  009 

Wooster  v.  Hunts  Co.  (38  Conn.  250)  2.54 

Wooten's  Estate  (50  Cal.  322)  531 

Worcester  v.  Clark  (2  Grant,  84)  24(1 

V.  Worcester  (101  Mass.  128)  890 

Word  V.  Mitchell  (.32  Ga.  623)  944 

V.  West  (38  Ark.  243)  844 

Worden  v.  Humeston  (72  Iowa,  201)  027 

Work  V.  Cowhick  (81  111.  317)  1082 

Workman  v.  Cannon  (5  Harr.  91)  878 

V.  Dominick  (3  Strobh.  589)  72 

Worman  v.  Teagarden  (2  Oh.  St.  380)        953 

Worsham  v.  Col'lison  (49  Mo.  206)  230 

Worth  V.  McAden  (1  Dev.  &  B.  Eq.  199)   512, 

513,  739,  743 

V.  Worth  (95  N.  C.  2-39)  1099 

Worthev  v.  Johnson  (8  Ga.  2-30)  1021 

Worthington  v.  Gittiugs  (56  Md.  542)         499 


Page 

Worthington  v.  Klemm  (144  Mass.  167)       60 

V.  McRoberts  (9  Ala.  297)  1078 

V.  Miller  (3  S.  W.  H.  532)  833 

Wortiilev  V.  Hammond  (13  Bush,  510)        808 

Worthy  V.  Lyon  (18  Ala.  784)  1184 

V. "Mcintosh  (90  N.  C.  530)  842 

Wortman  v.  Skinner  (12  N.  J.  Eq.  358)    735, 

1024 

Worton  V.  Ashlev  (2  Sm.  &  M.  527)         1249 

Wotton,  Goods  ."f  (L.  R.  3  P.  &  D.  159)      62 

Wray  v.  Davenport  (79  Va.  19)  202 

Wren  v.  Span  (1  How.  ^Sliss.  115)  810 

Wright's  Appeal  (89  Pa.  St.  07)  879 

Wright  V.  Campbell  (27  Ark.  037)  702 

V.  De  Groff  (14  Mich.  104)  1066 

V.  Denn  (10  Wheat.  204)  880,  1098 

V.  Dunham  (9  Pick.  37)  854 

f.  Dunning  (40  111.  271)  204 

V.  Edwards   (10  Oreg.   298)     1021,  1035, 

1037,  1080 

V.  Gilbert  (51  Md.  146)  359,  833 

V.  Harris  (31  Iowa,  272)  860 

V.  Holbrook  (.32  N.  Y.  587)  1112 

V.  Holbrook  (2  Hob.  N.  Y.  516)  1112 

V.  Jennings  (1  Bai.  L.  277)  218,  262 

V.  Lang  (66  Ala.  389)  653,  654 

V.  Lewis  (5  Rich.  212)  68 

V.  Linn  (9  Pa.  St.  433)  933 

V.  McNatt  (49  Tex.  425)  576,  1061 

V.  Mare  (50  Ala.  549)  439 

V.  Mongle  (10  Lea,  38)  566 

V.  Phillips  (56  Ala.  69)  375 

V.  Rogers  (L.  R.  1  P.  &  D.  678)  71 

v.  Smith  (19  Nev.  143)  433 

V.  Steed  (10  La.  An.  2-(8)  1031 

V.  Tinslev  (30  Mo.  389)  58 

V.  West  (2  Lea,  78)  270,  271 

V.  Wilkerson  (41  Ala.  207)  348,  1163 

V.  Wright  (13  Allen,  207)  189 

V.  Wright  (59  Barb.  505)  609 

V.  Wright  (7  Ring.  457)  70 

V.  Wriglit  (2  Brev.  125)  795 

V.  Wright  (1  Cow.  598)  121 

V.  Wright  (5  Ind.  389)  71,  89,  90 

V.  Wright  (72  Ind.  149)  525 

V.  Wright  (Mart.  &  Y.  43)  434,  532 

Wrigly  V.  Sykes  (2  Jur.  78)  716 

Wuesthoff  v.  Germania  Life  Ins.  Co.  (107 

N.  Y.  580)  64 

Wurts  V.  Jenkins  (11  Barb   546)  1260 

Wurtz  V.  Hart  (13  Iowa,  515)  859 

Wurzell  V.  Beckmaii  (52  Mich.  478)      99,  490 
Wvatt  V.  Rambo  (29  Ala.  510)  694 

"  r.  Steele  (26  Ala.  639)  328 

V.  Williams  (43  N.  H.  102)  617 

Wvche's  Estate  (Mvr.  85)  522 

WVche  V.  Clapp  (43  Tex.  543)  57 

WVckoff  V.  Perrine  (37  N.  J.  Eq.  118)        973, 

980 

V.  Van  Siclen  (3  Dem.  75)         1116,  1139 

V.  Wvckoff  (16  N.  J.  Eq.  401)      475,  481 

Wveth  ».' Stone  (144  Mass.  441)  141 

WVlie  V.  White  (10  Rich.  Eq.  294)  956 

WVUv  V.  Gazan  (69  Ga.  506)  1053,  1064 

WVman-s  Appeal  ( 13  N.  H.  18)  684 

WVman  v.  Brigden  (4  Mass.  150)      967,  1025 

■  V.  Buckstaff  (24  Wis.  477)  336 

V.  Campbell  (6  Port.  219)  329,  1021 

V.  Fox  (59  Me.  100)  246 

V.  Halstead  (109  U.  S.  654)         364,  441, 

650,  651 


TABLE   OF   CASES. 


CXXXIX 


Wyman  v.  Symmes  (10  Allen,  153)      7G 
Wvndhftm  u."  Chetwvnd  (1  Burr,  414) 

V.  Way  (4  'I'auiU.  310) 
WviikoopV.  Wviikoon  (42  Pa.  St.  293) 
Wyiin  V.  Hooker  (2G  Ga.  553) 
Wynne  v.  Thomas  (Willes  U.  5G3) 
Wynns  v.  Alexander  (2  Dev.  &  B.  Eq. 

58) 
Wyse  V.  Smith  (4  G-  &  J.  295) 


Page 
,  477 
70 
598 
591 
82(i 
335 

090 
1040 


Yarboroiifch's  Succession  (10  La.  An.  258)  812 

Yarborough  v.  Leggett  (14  Te.x.  077)  085,  811 

V.  Ward  (34  Ark.  204)  043,  757 

Yard  r.  Murrov  (80  Pa.  St.  113)  944,  940 

Yanllcv  V.  Arnold  (Carr.  &  M.  434)  423 

V.  ('utliburtson  (108  Pa.  St.  395)       49,  50 

V.  Cutlibertson  (15  Phi  la.  77)  50 

V.  Kaiib  (5  Whart.  117)  611 

Yarnall's  Will  (4  Kawie,  40)  82 

Y'arter  v.  Flajrg  (143  Mass.  280)  620 

Yates  V.  Houston  (3  Tex.  433)  223 

V.  Paddock  (10  Wend.  528)  254 

Y'awger  v.  Yawger  (37  N.J.  Imi.  216)       1017 

Yean  Clieah  v.  Ong  Cheng  Neo  (L.  R. 

6P.  C.  381)  907 

Y'earlev  v.  Cocke  (G8  Md.  174)  1131 

t;."Long(40Oh.  St.  27)  1098 

I'eates  v.  Briggs  (95  111.  79)  201 

V.  Gill  (9  a.  Mon.  203)  899 

Yeatman  i'.  Woods  (6  Yerg.  20)  200 

Yeaton  v.  Roberts  (28  N.  H.  459)        937,  950 

Yeaw  v.  Searle  (2  K.  I.  104)  581 

Y'ee  Yun's  Estate  (Mvr.  181)  533 

Yeldell  V.  Siiinholster  (15  Ga.  189)  645 

Y'eo  V.  Mercer,  au  (18  X.  J.  L.  387)  236 

Yeomans  v.  Brown  (8  Met.  51)  631 

YerbytJ.  Hill  (16  Tex.  377)  1059 

V.  Lynch  (3  Grat.  400)  774 

V.  Matthews  (26  Ga.  549)  849 

V.  Yerby  (3  Call,  334)  106 

Yerger  v.  Ferguson  (55  Miss.  190)  1031 

Yerkes  v.  Broom  (10  La.  An.  94)  542 

Yertore  v.  Wiswall  (16  How.  Pr.  8)  628 

Yingling  v.  Hesson  (16  Md.  112)  811 

Y'nogoso's  Succession  (13  La.  An.  559)     1072 

196,  202 

44,  474 

320 

1236 

86 

240 

177 

269 

842 

49 

258 


Yoe  V.  Hanvev  (25  S.  C.  94) 

V.  McCord  (74  111.  33) 
Yoeman  v.  Younger  (84  Mo.  424) 
Y'ohe  V.  Barney  (1  Binn.  358) 
York  r.  Walker  (12  JL  &  W.  591) 
V.  Welsh  (117  Pa.  St.  174) 
V.  York  (38  111.  522) 
Yorkly  v.  Stinson  (97  N.  C.  236) 
Yorks's  Appeal  (110  Pa.  St.  69) 
Yosti  V.  Laughran  (49  Mo.  594) 
Youndt  V.  Miller  (91  N.  C.  331) 


Youndt  V.  Youndt  (3  Grant  Ca.o.  140)  90,  481 
Young's  Appeal  (26  N.  W.  643)  823 

Appeal  (83  Pa.  St.  59)  904 

Apiieal  (99  I'a.  St.  74)       739,  1130,  1131. 

1203 

Settlement  (18  Beav.  199) 
Young,  In  re  (3  N.  B.  Reg.  440) 

Ex  parte  (8  Gill,  285) 

V.  Alexander  (16  Lea.  108) 

V.  Barner  (27  Grat.  96) 

V.  Brown  (75  Ga.  1) 

V.  Brown  (1  Hagg.  53) 

V.  Brush  (28  N.  Y.  607) 

V.  Cook  (30  Miss.  320) 

I'.  Gori  (13  Abb.  Pr.  13) 

V.  Holmes  (1  Stra.  70) 

V.  Hunter  (6  N.  Y.  203) 

I'.  Jones  (9  Humph.  551) 

V.  Kennedy  (95  N.  C.  265) 


t'.  Kimball  (8  Blackf.  167) 
V.  O'Neal  (3  Sneed,  55) 
V.  Radford  (Hob.  3  b) 
V.  Ridenbaugh  (67  Mo.  574) 
V.  Siuimate  (3  Sneed,  309) 
V.  Suggs  (Sm.  &  M.  Ch.  393) 
V.  Twigg  (27  Md.  620) 
V.  Wickliffe  (7  Dana,  447) 
V.  Wittenmyre  (22  111.  App.  496) 
V.  WittenmVre  (14  N.  East.  869) 
V.  Young  (i  A.  K.  Marsh.  56:^) 
V.  Young  (45  N.  J.  L.  197) 
Youngblood   v.   Norton   (1   Strobh. 

122) 
Younger  v.  Duffie  (94  N.  Y.  535) 
Youngs  V.  Youngs  (45  N.  Y  254) 
Youse  V.  Forman  (5  Bush,  337) 
Yundt's  Appeal  (13  Pa.  St.  575) 
Estate  (6  Pa.  St.  35) 


995 

294 

533,  1150 

1146 

42,  70,  470 

1124 

402 

1146 

1247 

611 

991 

953 

611 

1146,  1151, 

1184 

747,  1182 

365,  650 

595 


Eq.^ 


44 

348 

1231 

1080 
702 
375 

1042 
271 
840 

1213 

64 

890 

90 

122S 

1153 


Zacharias  v.  Collis  (3  Phillim.  176) 
Zachary  v.  Chambers  (1  Oreg.  321) 
Zaegefi'.  Kuster  (51  Wis.  31) 
Zahrt,  Matter  of  (94  N.  Y.  605) 
Zeigler  v.  Eckert  (6  Pa.  St.  13) 
Zeile,  In  re  (74  Cal.  125) 
Zeisweiss  i".  James  (63  Pa.  St  465) 
Zerbe  v.  Zerbe  (84  Pa.  St.  147) 
Ziegler  v.  Grim  (6  Watts.  lOO) 
Zimmerman  v.  Anders  (6  W.  &  S. 


V.  Kinkle  (108  N.  Y.  282) 

V.  Streeper  (75  Pa.  St.  147) 

Zoellner  v.  Zoellner  (53  Mich.  620) 

Zollickoffers  v.  Seth  (44  Md.  359) 

Zumwalt  V.  Zumwalt  (3  Mo.  269) 


50,51 

804,  809 

270 

267,  208 

976,  981 

970,  971 

908 

880 

1244 

923, 

929 

693 

121 

203 

810 

1193 


218) 


A    TREATISE 


ON   THE 


AMERICxVN  LAW  OF   ADMINISTRATION. 


INTRODUCTION. 

OF  THE  NATURE  OF  PROPERTY   AND   THE  PRINCIPLE 
DETERMINING   ITS   DEVOLUTION. 


CHAPTER    I. 

OF   PROPERTY   IN   GENERAL.^ 


§  1.    The  Acquisition   of  Property.  —  My  property  is  that  which 
is  mine.     That  only  is  mine  wliich  I  acquire,  hold,  and  dispose  of 
by  my  wilL     It  is  mi/  tvill  which  determines  the  acqui-   property  is 
sition  of  a  thing  by  me,  whether  originally,  by  reducing  ^^n' Iff'us^ 
to  possession,  and  thus  making  my  iproijerty  that  which   owner. 


1  The  definition  of  property  has  been 
attempted  upon  various  theories.  An 
able  writer,  Mr.  U.  M.  Rose,  has  pub- 
lished, in  the  "  Southern  Law  Review  " 
(N.  S.,  vol.  ii.  p.  1  et  seq.),  a  series  of  arti- 
cles, entitled  "  Controversies  of  Modern 
Continental  Jurists,"  in  which  he  com- 
ments upon  the  most  celebrated  theories 
concerning  the  derivation  of  rights,  and 
dwells  with  approbation  upon  Kant's  Sys- 
tem, which  he  styles  ihc  Possihiliti/  of 
Coexistence  (as  to  Kant's  definition  of 
property,  see  his  Rcchtslehre,  published  in 
the  PhUosophische  Bibliothek,  vol.  xxix., 
Berlin,  1870),  and  Rosmini's  theory,  from 
whose  work  (Delia  Natura  del  Diritto, 
Naples,  18-37)  he  quotes  to  some  extent. 
VOL.  I.  —  1 


The  reader  will  notice  how  near  these 
views  approacli  those  given  in  the  text, 
which  follow  the  exposition  of  Hegel 
in  his  Philosophle  cles  Ileclilx,  §§  40-70. 
No  translation  into  the  English  tongue 
of  this  truly  exhaustive  and  masterly 
treatise  on  the  law  has,  as  yet,  it  is  be- 
lieved, appeared  ;  but  in  "  The  Journal 
of  Speculative  Philosophy"  (vol.  iv.  p. 
155)  was  published  the  "  Outlines  of  the 
Science  of  Rights,  Morals,  and  Religion," 
which  is  a  translation  of  Hegel's  PhUoso- 
phische Propadentik,  enriched  by  explan- 
atory notes  elucidating  Hegel's  terminol- 
ogy and  abstruse  reasoning,  and  which 
contains  a  full  synopsis  of  his  greater 
work. 


2  NATURE  OF   PROPERTY.  §  2 

was  no  one's  property  before ;  or  hy  contract,  by  which  a  thing 
becomes  mine  through  the  concurrence  of  my  will  with  that  of  its 
former  owner.  Since  I  cannot  rightfully  acfiuire  the  property  of 
another  without  his  consent,  —  that  is,  without  his  free  will,  — it 
is  obvious  that  the  will  of  the  original  owner  is  a  necessary  ele- 
ment in  my  ownership,  and  in  the  ownership  of  any  one  who  may 
lawfully  acquire  it  after  me,  and  remains  operative  until  the  prop- 
erty has  lost  its  character  as  such  by  voluntary  abandonment. 
By  my  own  free  will  I  may  abandon  my  property,  whereupon  it 
ceases  to  be  such,  and  relapses  into  the  condition  of  res  nullms,  — 
subject  to  become  property  by  the  sole  will  of  any  person  who  . 
acquires  it. 

S  2.  Tenure  and  Use  of  Property  ;  its  Loss  by  Non-user.  —  I  hold 
or  use  a  thing  which  is  mine,  at  will.  Matter  is  unfree,  —  i.  e.  it 
It  is  so  only  has  uo  will,  it  does  not  belong  to  itself.  Neither  right 
owne"rwTnftt  ^or  duty  can  be  predicated  of  a  mere  thing;  its  quality 
to  be  so.  jg  to  offer  resistance  ;  it  is,  therefore,  negative  to  my 
will:  my  will,  in  realizing  itself,  overcomes  this  resistance  and 
subjects  the  thing  to  its  purposes,  — changing  its  form,  destroying, 
consuming  it.  That  which  is  mine  is  thus  a  part  of  my  person- 
ality, of  me,  in  so  far  as  its  end  and  purpose  of  existence  is  the 
satisfaction,  the  realization  of  my  will,  and  to  serve  it  for  its  pur- 
poses as  my  bodily  limbs  serve  me.  Will,  then,  is  the  essence  of 
property ;  without  it  there  is  none.  Hence,  that  from  which  I 
have  withdrawn  my  will,  which  I  have  abandoned,  ceases  to  be 
my  property,  and  becomes,  as  we  have  seen,  res  nullius,  the  ap- 
propriation of  which  by  another  is  no  violation  of  my  right,  be- 
cause it  is  no  collision  with  my  will.  If,  then,  I  wish  to  preserve 
my  property,  or,  which  is  the  same  in  effect,  my  right  to  it,  1 
must  indicate,  in  some  way  perceptible  to  others,  that  it  is  still 
subject  to  my  will;  otherwise  I  may  be  understood  as  having 
abandoned  it.  To  avoid  collisions  arising  out  of  a  misinter- 
pretation of  my  relation  to  a  thing,  a  definite  period  is  fixed 
It  ceases  to  be  ^Y  custom  or  law,  within  which  my  will  is  presmiied  to 
the  property    attach  to  it ;  if  I  permit  this  period  to  expire  without 

of  him  who  ^  .  ji      j. 

ceases  to  will   using  the  tiling,  or  indicatmg  m  some  tangible  way  that 

it  to  be  his.       .  .  ,      ,  .  ^i  .  • ,    .  •  i 

it  continues  to  be  mine,  (keeping  it  in  possession,  lay- 
ing it  up,  or  in  some  way  exercising  ownership  over  it,)  its  aban- 
donment is  presumed,  and  my  right  to  it  is  lost  by  prescription, 
my  ownership  barred  by  limitation. 


§  4  ALIENABILITY   OF    PROPERTY.  6 

§  3.     Alienability  of  Property.  —  111  like  manner  I  may  relin- 
(juish  my  property  to  another,  either  by  freely  giving  it,  or  ex- 
rhawjuKj  it  for  other  property.     We  have  already  seen    ^^  ^  .^^^  .^  ^^ 
that  property  acquired  from  another  can  become  such    be  some  one's 
only  by  the  will  of  the  former  owner.     My  donee  as 
well  as  my  vendee  holds  the  property  given  or  sold  by  the  concur- 
rence of  my  will  with  his  own  ;  it  must  be  my  will  that  the  donee 
shall  taivc,  and  his  that  he  will  receive,  the  thing  which  he  ac- 
quires from  me  by  gift;  and  my  will  to  relinquish  and  that  the 
vendee  shall  hold  the  propei-ty  1  sell  or  barter,  and  his  to  relin- 
quish and  that  1  shall  hold  the  property  I  get  in  exchange  there- 
for.    Property  so  relinquished  does  not  cease  to  be  property  when 
it  ceases  to  be  mine,  for  it  is  my  will  that  my  donee  or  vendee  shall 
hold  it.     The  alienation  of  property  constitutes  one  of    Alienation  is 
the  forms  in  which  1  use  it,  in  which  it  serves  my  pur-    t" whichVop! 
poses,  and  in  which  I  realize  my  ivill.     This  phase  or    p;Jfb"'''it,^*' 
quality  of  property  constitutes  the  sphere  of  contract,    owner. 
Alienability  is  of  the  essence  of  property  ;  an  infringement  of  my 
right  or  power  to  alienate  my  property  is  therefore  a  limitation 
upon  my  free  will,  and  to  that  extent  a  violation  of  my  personal 
liberty,  because  my  free  will  finds  realization  in  property.     The 
infraction  of  my  personal  freedom  is  precisely  the  same  if  a  lim- 
itation is  put  upon  my  power  to  alienate  property  as  if  I  were 
prevented  from  acquiring,  or  from  holding  or  using  it.     The  lim- 
itation would  in  either  case  deprive  me  of  my  powder  to  contract, 
and  thus  destroy  my  liberty .^ 

§   4.      Operation  of  the  Owner's  Will  after  his  Death. — Property, 
then,  is  the  realization  of  the  free  will  of  a  person,  the  external 

1  Intellectual  or  manual  skill,  sciences,  which  I  may  alienate  for  his  use,  —  not 

arts,  even  reH^ious  functions  (sermons,  the  wiiole  of  my  labor,  skill,  or  services, 

masses,  prayers,  etc.),  as  well  as  services  —  the  totality  of  my  activity  or  produc- 

to  be  rendered  for  another  at  or  for  a  tions, — for  that  would  be  to  alienate  my 

given   period,   are   all    included    in    the  own  personality,  to  destroy  my  free  will, 

sphere  of  contract.     It  might  appear,  on  which  are  inalienable.     The  servant  or 

a  superficial  view,  that  such  skill,  or  fane-  laborer  for   hire  realizrs  hix  will  hy  ex- 

tions,  or  services,   cannot  be  classed  as  changing  his  services  or  productions  for 

things,   and   do   not    therefore  constitute  his  wages,  and  thus  enters  into  a  lawful 

property,   being   themselves   emanations  contract ;  but  the  slnve  gives  up  or  is  de- 

of  free  will,  and  qualities  or  attributes  of  prived  of  his  free  will,  to  the  destruction 

the  mind.     But  it  is  within  the  province  "f  his  persoiutliti/,  which  can  neither  be 

of  my  mind  or  will  to  e.rtcninlize  a  lim-  relinquished  nor  acquired  as  property  by 

ited  share  of  my  activity,  to  give  to  an-  anotlier.     Hegel.  Philosophie  des  Kechts, 

other  an  interest  in  it,  and  thus  to  reduce  §§  4.!,  fi^■^  67.  and  addenda. 
it  to  the  condition  of  an  external  thing, 


4  NATURE   OF   PROPERTY.  §  5 

sphere  of  his  freedom.  As  such,  it  partakes  of,  and 
iiizes  ii7iiTO^P-^'"  is  clothed  with,  the  dignity  and  invioUxbility  of  the 
o?rishtof'its  person.  The  things  which  constitute  property  can 
owner.  ^^^^,^  j^q  rights,  for  they  have  no  will ;  and  will  alone, 

or  the  person  in  which  it  has  its  abode  and  vehicle,  can  be  the 
subject  of  right  and  of  its  correlative,  duty.  The  law  recognizes 
and  deals  with  property  only  in  so  far  as  it  recognizes  and  deals 
with  the  will  of  the  owner,  realized  or  externalized  therein.  For 
the  sphere  of  the  law  is  the  Spiritual ;  it  operates  upon  and 
through  the  will  alone. ^  Thus  the  law  recognizes  in  the  property 
of  a  deceased  person  his  free  will ;  that  is,  his  rational  will,  and 
enforces  it.  The  failure  of  such  recognition  would  destroy  the 
property,  which  can  be  such  only  through  the  will  of  its  owner. 
If  this  has  been  adequately  expressed,  the  disposition  of  the  prop- 
erty is  enforced  accordingly ;  if  not,  the  law  itself  supplies  the 
omission  by  imparting  to  the  property  the  universal  will,  which  is 
the  free  will  of  rational  persons. 

§  5.  Distinction  between  Rational  and  Capricious  Will. —  The 
distinction  between  truly  free  or  rational  will  and  caprice,  unfree 
But  cancels  *^^'  irrational  will,  lies  in  the  content  which  the  will 
mere  caprice,  giyes  itsclf,  or  the  objcct  wliich  it  pursues.  Universal 
will  (as  distinguished  from  personal,  individual,  or  subjective 
will)  is  the  will  as  embodied  in  the  law,  in  morality,  ethics,  relig- 
ion. Without  universal  will  there  could  be  no  laws,  nor  anything 
obligatory  upon  us  all.  Each  one  would  act  according  to  his  own 
caprice  or  pleasure,  without  respecting  the  caprice  or  pleasure  of 
others.  In  so  far,  then,  as  the  will  of  the  individual  has  for  its 
content  or  object  the  universal  will,  it  is  rational  and  free.2 
Caprice,  arbitrary  or  limited  will,  has  for  its  object  or  content  the 
gratification  of  some  impulse  or  appetite,  which  may  or  may  not 
be  rational,  i.  e.  in  consonance  with  the  universal  or  absolute 
will.3     It  follows  that  the  law  can  recognize  and  enforce  only 

1  The  will  is  free;  freedom  is  its  sub-  2  «  The  absolute  will  has  only  itself  for 

stance  and  essential  quality,  in  like  man-  object,  while  the  relative  will  has  some- 

ner  as  the  substance  and  essential  quality  thing  limited  "  :  Hegel,  Propiideutik,  §  20; 

of  matter  is  gravity.     Gravity  is  not  an  Jour.  Sp.  Ph.,  vol.  iv.  p.  57.      See  also 

accidental  predicate  of  matter,  but  mat-  Hegel,  Encyclopadie,  §§  483-486. 

ter  itself;  so  with  freedom  and  will :  free-  ^  Caprice  (arbitrariness)  is  formal,  but 

dom   is  will.     Will  without  freedom  is  a  not  true  freedom.      Since  I  may  elect  to 

word  void  of  meaning;    freedom  exists  determine,  or  not  to   determine,  this  or 

only   as    will.      Heeel's    Philosophie  des  that,  I  possess  what  is  ordinarily  called 

Rechts,  §  4,  and  addendum.  freedom.     My  choice  consists  in  the  fao- 


§  6  PROPERTY   AND   FA^HLY.  5 

true  or  rational  will,  and  must  ignore  and  cancel  that  which  is 
capricious  and  arbitrary. 

§  6.  Relation  of  Property  to  the  Family.  —  Tlic  ethical  relation 
between  the  sexes  demands  tht'ir  union  in  matrimony,  from  which 
the  family  results  as  a  spontaneous  natural  (social    „.  ,     ,  , 

.  '^  ,  ^  .  ^  Riirht  of  the 

union)    society,  whose    members   arc    united    by  the    family  to 

bonds  of  mutual  affection,  implicit  trust,  and  volun- 
tary obedience  (pietas}.  The  family  is  an  organic  totality,  whose 
constituent  elements  have  their  true  existence  not  in  their  indi- 
viduality, but  in  tlieir  relation  to  each  other  through  the  totality, 
lacking  independence  when  separated  from  it ;  they  have  no  sepa- 
rate interests  to  seek,  but  only  one  common  interest  for  the  whole. 
Hence,  there  dwells  in  the  family  but  one  will ;  namely,  that  of 
the  head  of  the  family,  who  represents  it  in  its  legal  relations  to 
others.!  In  recognizing  the  true  nature  and  validity  of  tlie 
family,  the  law  accords  to  it  and  secures  it  in  the  enjoyment  of 
the  necessary  means  to  its  existence,  property  ;  and  this  in  a 
higher  sense  and  in  a  more  efficient  degree  than  it  secures  the 
property  of  individuals.  The  existence  of  the  family  as  an  aggre- 
gate person  requires  a  permanent  estate,  adequate  not  only  to  the 
capricious  purposes  and  desires  of  an  individual,  but  to  the  com- 
mon collective  wants  of  all  its  members.^  In  this  estate  or  prop- 
erty no  one  member  of  the  family  has  an  exclusive  interest  or 
right  of  possession,  but  each  his  undivided  interest  in  the  common 
fund.2  Nevertheless,  the  property  is  usually  lield  by  the  head  of 
the  family,  and  in  his  name.  It  devolves  chiefly  upon  him  to 
provide  for  it  the  means  of  subsistence  and  of  satisfying  their 
various  wants.     He  controls,  manages,  and  disposes  of  the  prop- 

ulty  of  the  will  to  make  this  or  the  other  free  when  allowed  to  act  arbitrarily,  but 

thing  mine.      Being  a  particular  content,  true  freedom  has  no  contingent  content ; 

this  thing  is  not  adequate  to  me:    I  am  it  alone  is  not  contingent.     Hegel,  Phil, 

not  identical  with  it;  I  am  simply  the  po-  d.  R.,  §  15  ;  Jour.  Sp.  Ph.,  iv.  56-58. 

tentiality  to  make  it  mine.      Hence,  the  ^  3  Jour.  Sp.  Phil.,  p.  167,  §  28. 

choice  lies  in   the   indeterminateness   of  '^  Hence  the  provisions  in  the  statutes 

the  F^go  and  the  determinateness  of  the  of  tlie  several  States  securing  to  tiie  widow 

content ;  being  determined    (limited)   by  and    orphans   of  a  deceased  person  the 

tills  content,  the  will  is   not  free  —  i.e.  homestead,  year's  support,  etc.  as  against 

has  not  itself  (universal  will)  for  its  con-  creditors,  the  homestead  acts,  liability  of 

tent.      Whether  the  content   (object)  of  a  father  for  the  support  and  education  of 

the  capricious  will  be  rational  (conform-  his  minor  children,  the   wife's  right   to 

ing  to  the  universal  will)  or  not,  depends  dower,  etc. 

upon  nrcident :  my  dependence  upon  the  ^  Hegel,  Phil.  d.  R.,  §§  158,  170 ;  En- 
content  constitutes  the  inconsistency  of  cycl.,  §  520. 
caprice.    Men  usually  believe  themselves 


NATURE   OF    PROPERTY. 


§•7 


erty  or  estate,  limited  in  his  absolute  dominion  over  it,  aside  from 
his  moral  obligations,  only  by  the  affirmative  provisions  of  the 
law.  Upon  the  dissolution  of  the  family  through  the  develop- 
ment of  its  ethical  purpose,  i.  e.  upon  the  attainment  of  major- 
ity of  the  children,  —  who  then  separate  from  it  as  persons  sm' 
juris,  capable  of  holding  property  of  their  own  and  becoming 
founders  of  new  families,  —  their  interest  in  the  family  estate  is 
modified  accordingly  ;  the  authority  of  the  father,  as  well  as  his 
liability  to  support  such  children,  is  no  longer  recognized  in  law, 
but  becomes  of  ethical  or  moral  force  only.^ 

§  7.  Testamentary  Disposition  of  Property.  — -From  the  nature 
of  property,  in  its  relation  to  the  individual  as  well  as  to  the 
Testamentary  family.  Springs  the  principle  of  its  devolution  upon 
powersprinss    ^j  g  dcatli  of  the  owncr.      The  power  to  dispose   of 

from  the  ri^ht  ,    •    /i       <■ 

of  alienation,  property  by  last  will  or  testament  results  strictly  irom 
its  essential  quality  of  alienahiUty  by  the  owner,^  and  is,  liivc  gifts 
or  contracts  inter  vivos,  limited  only  by  the  policy  of  the  law.^ 
The  restraint  placed  upon  a  testator  is  no  greater  than  that 
which    exists    in  cases    of    alienation  of    property  inter    vivos; 


1  Hegel,  Phil.  d.  R.,  §  177. 

2  See  ante,  §  3. 

3  But,  from  tlie  standpoint  of  etliics 
and  morality,  the  unlimited  testatory 
power  is  not  justifiable.  If  the  testator 
die  after  his  children  have  readied  major- 
ity, there  may  be  some  ground  for  volun- 
tary discrimination  between  his  natural 
heirs.  Unless,  however,  this  is  resorted 
to  in  a  very  limited  measure,  and  for  valid 
reasons,  it  will  be  in  violation  of  the  logi- 
cal and  ethical  basis  of  the  family.  Nor 
can  the  testatory  power  be  deduced  from 
the  arbitrary  will  of  the  testator  against 
the  substantial  rights  of  the  family  unless 
the  kinship  be  remote.  The  arbitrary 
power  of  the  father  to  disinherit  his  chil- 
dren is  one  of  the  immoral  provisions  of 
the  Roman  laws,  according  to  which  he 
might  also  kill  or  sell  his  son ;  and  the 
wife  (even  if  not  in  the  relation  of  a  slave 
to  her  husband,  in  numum.  conveniret,  in 
mancipio  esset,  but  as  a  matron)  was  a 
member,  not  of  the  family  of  which  she 
was  the  mother,  but  of  that  of  which  she 
was  a  descendant,  inheriting  from  the 
latter,  and  the  latter  inheriting  from  her. 
Hegel,  Phil.  d.  R.,  §§  179,  180. 


The  power  of  testamentary  disposition 
of  property  is  nowhere  so  unlimited  as 
under  the  modern  statutes  of  England 
and  the  American  States.  The  common 
law  of  England,  at  least  the  custom  in 
particular  places,  did  not  allow  a  man  to 
dispose  of  the  whole  of  his  personal  es- 
tate by  will  unless  he  died  without  either 
wife  or  issue,  but  required  him  to  leave 
one  third  to  his  wife  and  one  third  to  his 
children,  if  he  left  both  wife  and  children  ; 
or  one  half  to  his  wife  or  children  if  he  left 
either.  (See  1  Perk.  Williamson  Exec, 
\  et  ser/.)  Under  the  codes  of  Louisiana 
and  most  of  the  continental  countries  of 
Europe  the  right  to  disinherit  one's  own 
children  is  allowed  only  for  certain  causes 
pointed  out  by  the  law,  which  are  re- 
quired to  be  recited  in  the  instrument, 
the  trutli  of  which  may  be  traversed  and 
the  will  set  aside  if  not  sustained  at  the 
trial.  Blackstone  is  eloquent  in  the  ex- 
pression of  his  disapprobation  of  "  the 
power  of  wantonly  disinheriting  the  heir 
by  will,  and  transferring  the  estate, 
through  the  dotage  or  caprice  of  the  an- 
cestor, from  those  of  his  blood  to  utter 
strangers  "  :  2  Bla.  Comm.  373. 


§  8  SUCCESSION    AT   LAW.  7 

the  wife's  dower,  the  provisions,  clothing,  year's  sup-  J,';.";|J;'J/;",1-;;' 
port,  household  furniture,  etc.,  of  which  a  testator  ohiis  family, 
cannot  deprive  his  family,  are  similarly  protected  against  credi- 
tors, and,  in  many  cases,  against  improvident  alienation  by  the 
living  head  of  the  family.  A  fruitful  source  of  litigation  is  found 
in  the  capricious  and  arbitrary  disjxjsitions  often  made  in  wills,  to 
the  grievance  and  unjust  deprivation  of  heirs  at  law  ;  and  the 
readiness  with  which  juries  seize  upon  slight  pretexts,  flimsy 
proof  of  "  undue  influence,"  etc.,  to  set  aside  such  unjust  wills, 
is  indicative  of  a  deep-seated  ethical  aversion  to  the  power  of 
arbitrarily  diverting  the  natural  channel  of  the  devolution  of 
property. 

§  8.  Succession  of  Property  at  Law.  —  Upon  the  natural  dis- 
solution of  the  family  by  the  death  of  the  parents,  or  more  par- 
ticularly of  the  husband  or  father,  the  property  of  the  Hence  property 
family  descends  to  the  heirs.  It  is  quite  apparent  famUy  upon  its 
that,  in  the  case  of  a  family  in  the  most  restricted,  "^^"^^'^  '^^^t^- 
natural  sense  (consisting  of  parents  and  children),  there  is  in  this 
process  no  substantial,  but  only  a  formal  change  of  ownership : 
the  property  held  by  them  in  common,  or  by  the  head  of  the 
family  for  them,^  now  passes  to  them  directly.  In  the  absence  of 
a  testamentary  division,  the-  property  vests  by  the  law  of  descent, 
passing  from  the  husband  and  father  to  the  wife  and  children, 
that  being  the  natural,  substantial,  and  rational  course  ;  such,  in 
the  absence  of  a  contrary  disposition,  is  the  rational,  substantial 
will  of  the  deceased  to  which  the  law  gives  effect.  In  default  of 
wife  and  children,  the  parents,  brothers  and  sisters,  or  other 
more  distant  relatives,  constitute  the  heirs  ;  the  family  bond  is 
looser  as  the  kinship  is  more  remote  and  the  relatives  belong  to 
other  families  of  their  own.  In  the  same  ratio  in  which  the  rea- 
son demanding  the  heirship  between  members  of  the  same  family 
loses  force  with  the  remoteness  of  kinship,  the  propriety  and  jus- 
tice of  testamentary  disposition  of  property  becomes  more  ap- 
parent.2     The   disposition  of   property  in   anticipation  of  death 

1  See  ante,  §  G.  protected  even  against  their  own  inipru- 

2  The  institution  of  primogeniture  is  dence  and  caprice  by  the  entail  of  their  es- 
deducible  from  the  political  necessity  of  tates,  relieving  tliem  from  the  distracting 
the  State,  which  seeks  to  increase  its  cares  of  obtaining  the  means  of  support, 
stability  by  creating  a  class  of  persons  and  from  the  vicissitudes  of  fortune,  tlms 
independent  alike  of  the  favor  of  the  gov-  enabling  them  to  devote  their  undivided 
ernment  and  of  tlie  public  at  large,  and  energies  to  the  service  of  the  State.    Pri- 


8  NATURE   OF   PROPERTY.  §  9 

{donatio  mortis  causa)  is  but  another  form  of  testamentary  dis- 
position.i 

§  9.  The  Law  as  the  Rational  "Will  of  the  Owner  —  It  is  sclf- 
evideut  that  the  claims  of  creditors  of  a  deceased  person  consti- 
The  law  ac  tute  a  title  to  the  property  left  by  him  superior  to  that 
wint'theX-  of  heirs,  whether  testamentary  or  at  law.  A  deljt  con- 
ceased  himself  stitutes  property  of  the  creditor  remaining  in  the  pos- 

would  have  i       i         J  ,  .    ,      ,         ,  i       ^^^      c 

done.  session  of  the  debtor,  which,  by  the  concurrent  will  ot 
both,  is,  at  some  period  subsequent  to  the  creation  of  the  debt 
(arising  out  of  an  express  or  implied  contract),  to  pass  into  the 
possession  of  the  creditor.  The  debtor,  then,  has  only  a  qualified 
property  in  the  thing  (usually  the  price  for  goods  sold  or  services 
rendered)  which  constitutes  the  debt ;  namely,  the  right  of  pos- 
session for  a  period  of  time  which  may  be  definite,  or  depend 
upon  the  forbearance  of  the  creditor.  The  substantial  property 
the  right  to  the  thing,  with  a  present  or  future  right  to  the  pos- 
session also  —  is  already  in  the  creditor ;  for  this  reason,  it  can- 
not go  to  the  debtor's  heirs,  or  it  goes  to  them  to  the  extent  only 
in  which  he  had  an  interest  therein.  To  secure  the  rights  of 
creditors  in  the  estates  of  deceased  persons  against  the  heirs  as 
well  as  against  strangers,  and  to  secure  justice  to  and  between 
the  heirs  themselves,  —  in  other  words,  to  enforce  the  rational 
will  of  the  decedent,  which  can  be  no  other  than  that  upon  his 
death  his  property  shall  pass  to  his  creditors  and  testamentary  or 
legal  heirs,  —  the  law  itself  performs  the  office  of  the  deceased 
owner,  substituting  for  or  supplying  as  his  will  its  own  universal 
will.2 

mogeniture   and   entail  are  violative   of  of    that  law   which   has  undertaken   to 

the  true  principle  of  property,  destroying  provide   for  the  discharge  of  the  duties 

both  its  alienability  and  natural  course  of  omitted  by  the  intestate.     The  creation 

descent ;    hence,   they  are   utterly  inde-  of  this  aijent  the  law  wisely  leaves  to  the 

fensible  and  immoral  where  no  political  discretion  of  the  ancestor,  if  he  chooses 

necessity  exists  for  them.    (Hegel,  Pliil.  d.  to  exercise  it ;  he  may  make  his  own  will 

R.,  §§  306,180.)     In  America  they  are  instead  of  leaving  it  to  the  law  io  make 

generally  inhibited   by  the  constitutions  one  for  him,  and  he  may  appoint  his  own 

or  statutes  of  the  several  States.  agent  or  executor  instead  of  confiding 

1  See  post,  ch.  vii.  this  duty  to  the  probate  court  under  tlie 

2  "  The  character  of  thh  estate,  together  authority  of  the  law.  If  the  ancestor,  by 
with  the  variety  of  individuals  who  may  will,  appoint  his  own  agent  or  executor, 
be  interested  in  it,  as  creditors,  legatees,  he  thereby  becomes  vested  with  the  title 
or  distributees,  seems  to  demand  that  it  to  the  property  in  a  fiduciary  character, 
also  should  be  vested  hy  law  in  some  But  if,  either  designedly  or  otherwise, 
common  agent,  who  shall  preserve  it  from  the  ancestor  die  without  executing  his 
waste,  and  dispose  of  it  to  those  entitled  power  of  testamentary  disposition,  the 
to  receive  it  according  to  the  provisions  law,  as   in  case  of  real  estate,  assumes 


^  10  EXECUTORS    AND    ADMINISTRATORS.  9 

From  this  theory  it  is  apparent  that  tlie  true  reason  of  the  law 
of  descent,  of  the  recognition  of  the  vahdity  of  testaments,  and  of 
the  authority  assumed  by  the  law  over  the  estates  of  'n,e  nature  of 
deceased  persons,  is  to  be  found  in  the  necessity  of  re-  |^|'",Pff^;^j  tjjf 
storino-  tlie  essential  quality  of  propertv  which  has  lost   family  deter- 

,  .      ,  '-,  mine   the 

the  will  element  by  the  death  oi  the  owner,  bome  course  of 
text-writers  look  upon  the  i)roperty  left  by  deceased 
persons  as  res  nuUius,  which  might  be  seized  and  ai»i)ropriated  by 
the  first  comer  or  bystander,  and  hold  that  the  laws  of  descent 
and  of  distribution  are  simply  wise  and  necessary  precautionary 
measures  to  prevent  strife  and  violence  at  the  death-bed.  That 
such  is  the  effect  of  these  laws  is  evident  enough,  as  also  their 
wisdom  and  validity ;  but  to  place  the  reason  of  their  enactment 
on  this  ground  is  to  ignore  the  true  nature  of  the  family,  as  well 
as  the  true  nature  of  property.^ 

§  10.  Administration :  Functions  of  Executors  and  Administra- 
tors. —  The  purpose  of  the  law  in  this  respect  is  accomplished  in 
a  simple  and  efficient  manner  by  its  officers  or  minis-  j^^^  devoiu- 
ters,  vested  with  powers  and  duties  commensurate  with    t'"°  of  p'^p- 

'  1  erty  accom- 

the  exigencies  requiring  their  intervention.     The  sum    piished  by 

.    .        .  n     T         7      .     •  •  1  •    1       •       -J-        executors 

of  their  activity  is  called  aamDii^tration,  wmch,  \n  its  and  admin- 
narrowest  legal  sense,  is  the  collection,  management, 
and  distribution,  under  legal  authority,  of  the  estate  of  an  intes- 
tate by  an  officer  known  as  administrator ;  or  of  the  estate  of  a 
testator  having  no  competent  executor,  by  an  administrator  with 
the  loill  annexed.  The  person  charged  with  the  management  and 
disposition  of  the  estate  of  a  testator  is  an  executor,  and  his  office 
is  called  executorship,  because  he  executes  the  testator's  will,  but 
his  official  acts  are  also  called  administration.'^  The  functions  of 
these  officers  are  in  many  respects  similar  to  those  of  trustees  as 

itself  the  duty  of  appointment,  and  vests  tlie  management  of  the  estates  of  minors, 

this  title  and  authority  over  the  perxonal  persons    of    unsound    mind,    drunkards, 

estate  in  a  common  agent  for  the  parties  spendthrifts,   etc.,  by  officers   known   as 

in  interest,  who  is   called   an  administra-  (jncii-diann,  cm-alors,  tutors,  committees,  etc. 

tor."  —  Harris,    J.,    delivering    the    dis-  Persons   who   are  incompetent   to    man- 

senting   opinion  in    Evans  v.  Fisher,   40  age  their  affairs  have  not  free  will,  with- 

!Miss.  643,  679  et  seq.,  citing  from  1  Tuck,  out    which,   as    previously    set   forth   in 

Lect.,  pt.  2,  pp.  397,  3!>8.  the  text,  there  can  be  no  property  ;  hence, 

1  Hegel,  Phil.  d.  R.,  §  178.  as  in  the  case  of  deceased  persons,  the 

2  The  term  administratior),  in  its  pri-  law  vindicates  its  character  as  such  by 
mary  signification  and  general  sense  supplying  it  with  the  content  of  its  own 
equivalent  to  conduct,  management,  distri-  universal  will,  through  the  intervention 
bution,  etc.  (Webster),  is  also  applicable  to  of  guardians,  etc. 


10  NATURE   OF   PROPERTY.  §  11 

known  in  chancery.  Text-writers  find  it  convenient  to  subsume 
them  under  the  same  class  when  discussing  the  i)Owers,  rights, 
duties,  and  liabilities  of  trustees.  But  there  is  an  obvious  and 
essential  distinction  between  administrators  and  ordinary  trus- 
tees :  while  the  latter  derive  their  jjowers  from  the  voluntary 
creators  of  the  trust,  the  authority  of  the  former  flows  directly 
from  the  law  itself.  Their  functions  constitute  an  essential  ele- 
ment of  the  law,  and  are  exercised  with  entire  independence  of 
the  personal  views,  desires,  and  intentions  of  the  parties  con- 
cerned. They  are  in  the  full  sense  officers  of  the  law,  and  of 
courts  organized  and  having  jurisdiction  for  the  especial  purpose 
of  aiding  and  controlling  them.  They  arc  clothed  with  authority 
to  act  in  all  matters  connected  with  the  disposition  of  the  dece- 
dent's estate,  precisely  as  he  himself  would  rationally  have  done ; 
and  it  is  the  ofifice  of  these  courts  to  compel  such  action,  and  to 
cancel  all  capricious,  wilful  acts  inconsistent  with  justice  and  the 
legal  rio'hts  of  creditors  and  distributees. 

§  11.  Functions  of  Courts  controlling  the  Devolution  of  Property. 
—  The  organization  of  courts  having  exclusive  jurisdiction  over 
^    .  „  , ,     matters  pertaining  to  the  administration  of  the  estates 

Controlled  by  ^  " 

a  class  of  of  dcccascd  pcrsous,  and  of  minors  and  persons  mcapa- 
ized  for  this  blc  of  managing  their  affairs,  has  undoubtedly  proved 
purpose.  exceedingly  useful  and  convenient  to  the  public.  But 
while  to  this  circumstance  may  be  ascribed  their  historical  devel- 
opment and  the  modern  growth  and  increased  extent  of  their 
jurisdiction,  yet  the  true  distinction  between  them  and  the  courts 
of  ordinary  plenary  jurisdiction  is  not  found  in  their  usefulness 
or  convenience,  but  is  based  upon  the  more  profound  principle 
underlying  their  origin,  the  logical  diremption  of  the  functions 
peculiar  to  the  two  classes  of  courts,  which  a  brief  examination  of 
these  functions  will  readily  disclose. 

The  division  of  the  powers  of  government  into  their  constituent 
elements  results,  in  all  modern  free  states,  in  the  three  co-ordinate 
departments,  confided  to  separate  magistracies,  known  as  the 
legislative,  judicial,  and  executive.  It  is  sufhcient  for  the  present 
purpose  to  bear  in  mind  that  it  is  the  office  of  the  judiciary  to 
interpret  and  apply  the  law  established  by  the  legislative  branch 
to  cases  arising  out  of  collision,  whether  actual  or  imaginary, 
with  the  law,  leaving  it  to  the  executive  branch  to  carry  out  the 
judgments  of  the  courts.     Thus  the  judge  is  seen  to  act  as  the 


§  11  TESTAMENTARY   COUETS.  11 

organ  or  mouth-piece  of  the  law,  announcing,  in  each  case  brought 
to  his  official  cognizance,  whether  the  alleged  collision  between 
the  will  of  an  individual,  as  objectified  in  an  outward  act,  (for  will 
which  is  undetermined,  not  become  external  by  accomplishment 
of  its  purpose,  is  beyond  the  realm  of  the  law,  which  deals  only 
with  the  actual,')  is  real  or  imaginary.  In  the  exercise  of  this 
function,  the  judge,  with  a  directness  peculiar  to  this  branch  of 
sovereign  power,  accomj)lishes  the  great  office  and  end  of  the 
state  and  of  all  government,  the  accomplishment  of  justice,  the 
realization  of  will  :  securing  to  the  rational  will  of  the  individual 
its  legitimate  fruition,  and  holding  the  irrational,  capricious,  or 
negative  will  to  its  own  logical  result  (reparation  and  punishment 
for  wrong  and  crime). 

But  we  have  seen  that  all  property  subject  to  administration  is 
deficient  in  that  element  which  alone  can  be  the  basis  of  a  col- 
lision  between  the  individual  will  and  the  law  ;  it  is  the  province 
of  the  court  having  jurisdiction  over  executors  and  administra- 
tors to  supply  the  individual  ivill  lacking  in  property,  to  fill  the 
vacuum  created  by  the  death  of  the  owner  with  the  content  of 
the  univci'sal  will ;  that  is,  to  secure  the  disposition  of  property 
under  administration  as  the  owner,  acting  rationally,  would  have 
disposed  of  it  if  living.  The  functions  involved  in  this  office  ^ 
have  a  ministerial  element  superadded  to  their  judicial  quality, 
which,  if  they  occurred  in  ordinary  courts  of  law  or  equity,  would 
require  the  intervention  of  adjuncts  —  commissioners,  auditors,  ref- 
erees, etc. —  involving,  aside  from  the  question  of  inconvenience, 
delay,  and  cost,  an  incongruity  in  the  duties  of  the  office.^ 

Such  being  the  logical  basis  and  scope  of  courts  having  control 
of  executors  and  administrators,  their  historical  development  in 
England,  but  more  particularly  in  the  United  States,  has  been  a 
gradual  but  steady  separation  from  the  common  law  and  chancery 
courts,  and  has  resulted  in  a  practical  recognition  of  probate  juris- 
diction as  a  distinct  and  independent  branch  of  the  law,  destined 
to  achieve  for  itself  a  sphere  sui  generis,  based  upon  and  deter- 
mined by  its  own  inherent  pi'inciples. 

1  Hegel,  Pliil.  d.  R.,  §§  113,  13.  ing  inventories,  settlements,  reports,  etc., 

2  Such  as  the  appointment  of  admin-  fixing  the  dividends  to  be  paid  to  credi- 
istrators,  granting  probate  of  wills  in  non-  itors,    decreeing    payment    of    legacies, 
contentious   cases,  qualifying  executors,  ordering  distribution  of  the  residue,  etc. 
fixing  the  amount  and  passing  upon  the  '^  Jurisdiction     of      Probate     Courts: 
sufficiency  of  bonds  and  sureties,  receiv-  South.  L.  K.,  (N.  S.)  vol.  iii.  pp.  254-267. 


12  REAL  AND  PERSONAL  PROPERTY.  §  12 


CHAPTER  II. 


OP   THE   DISTINCTION    BETWEEN   EEAL    AND    PERSONAL   PROPERTY. 

§  12.  Distinction  between  Movable  and  Immovable,  or  Real  and 
Personal  Property.  —  All  property,  of  whatever  kind  or  division. 
All  property  is  necessarily  determined,  in  its  devolution  upon  the 
cordi'ng lo'the  death  of  the  owner,  by  the  same  immanent  law  or 
owner's  will,  p^-jnciple.  There  is  no  inherent  difference  in  this  re- 
spect between  corporeal  and  incorporeal,  or  between  movable  and 
immovable  property  ;  all  alike  passes  according  to  the  will  of  the 
deceased  owner,  whether  expressed  by  himself  or  presumed  by  the 
law.     But  the  difference  existing  between  movable  and 

But  real  and  °  i        p        m  -tj.         c 

personal  prop-  immovable  property,  with  respect  to  the  leasibility  ot 
under  dl^ffer-^  its  actual  transfer  or  delivery  from  person  to  person, 
ent  rules.  ^^^^  irom  placc  to  place,  gives  rise  to  important  dis- 
tinctions to  be  observed,  both  as  regards  the  formalities  necessary 
to  constitute  a  valid  testamentary  disposition,  and  as  to  the  code 
of  law  which  may  govern  the  descent.  It  will  appear,  from  the 
consideration  of  the  subject  hereafter,^  that  immovable  property 
must  be  determined  by  the  law  of  the  place  where  it  is  situated  ; 
but  that  movables  generally  descend  according  to  the  law  of  the 
owner's  last  domicil. 

The  most  important  classification  of  property,  giving  rise  to  far- 
reaching  and  radical  distinctions  at  the  common  law  and  in  most 
of  the  States,  is  its  division  into  real  and  personal,^  corresponding 
substantially,  but  not  precisely,  to  immovable  and  movable  prop- 
erty, or  to  lands  and  tenements  on  the  one  side,  and  goods  and 
chattels  on  the  other.  The  importance  of  this  division  grows  out 
The  distinc-  of,  or  is  at  least  enhanced  by,  the  introduction  of  the 
ofThe'feudar*  feudal  System  into  England  after  the  Conquest,  which 
system.  p^^  ^u  end  to  all  absolute   ownership   in   land,  and 

1  Post,  §  168.  because  it  is  directed  against  the  thing 

2  The  terms  "  real  "  and  "  personal "  itself,  —  the  real  thing  ;  that  for  goods  and 
seem  to  owe  their  origin  to  the  nature  of  chattels  is  personal,  because  the  proceed- 
the  remedies  applicable  for  the  depriva-  ing  is  against  the  person  only  :  Rap.  &  L. 
tion  of  either  of  these  classes  of  prop-  Law  D.,  1066. 

erty  :  the  action  for  land  is  a  real  action, 


§  13  REAL    ESTATE   AT    COMMON    LAW.  13 

thus  did  violence  to  the  j)riiicij)le  \i\h)u  whieli  property  rests.  The 
feudal  system  has  so  thoroughly  ])cnueatcd  tlic  common  law,  and 
so  thoroughly  given  it  form  and  color,  that  neither  this  nor  the 
statutory  systems  of  England  or  America  can  be  understood  with- 
out a  knowledge  of  and  continual  reference  to  the  feudal  prin- 
ci})les.  A  brief  outline  of  the  origin  and  history  of  the  tenure  by 
which  land  was  and  now  is  held  in  England  must  therefore  pre- 
cede the  further  consideration  of  the  subject. 

§  13.  Origin  of  the  Tenure  of  Real  Estate  at  Common  Law.  —  The 
peculiarity  of  the  feudal  system  consists  in  the  division  of  the 
ownership :  under  it  the  property  in  as  well  as  domin-  Tenure  of 
ion  over  all  lands  in  England  was  originally  in  the  [h"'feudar'^ 
king,  who  granted  out  their  use  on  condition  of  certain  system. 
services  to  be  performed.  This  holding,  or  tenure,  was  not  limited 
to  the  first  or  paramount  lord  and  his  vassals,  but  extended  to  all 
to  whom  such  vassals  parted  out  their  feuds  to  their  own  vassals, 
thus  becoming  mesne  lords  between  the  latter  and  the  lord  para- 
mount.i  It  became  a  fundamental  maxim  and  necessary  principle, 
(though  in  reality,  says  Blackstone,  a  mere  fiction,)  "  that  the 
king  is  the  universal  lord  and  original  proprietor  of  all  the  lands 
in  the  kingdom  ;  and  that  no  man  doth  or  can  possess  any  part  of 
it,  but  what  has  mediately  or  immediately  been  derived  as  a  gift 
from  him,  to  be  held  upon  feudal  services."  ^  Gratuitous  as  were 
these  feuds  at  their  first  introduction,  so  they  were  precarious, 
depending  upon  the  will  of  the  lord,  who  was  the  sole  judge 
whether  his  vassal  performed  his  services  faithfully.  Then  they 
became  certain  for  one  or  more  years,  and  later  they  began  to  be 
granted  for  the  life  of  the  feudatory  ;  until  in  process  of  time  it  be- 
came unusual,  and  was  therefore  thought  hard,  to  reject  the  heir, 
if  capable  of  performing  the  services.  The  heir,  when  admitted 
to  the  feud  of  his  ancestor,  used  to  pay  a  fine  for  the  renewal, 
which  continued  to  be  exacted  upon  the  death  of  the  tenant  even 
after  feuds  became  absolutely  hereditary .^ 

The  ancient  English  tenures  are  described  by  Bracton  (in  the 
time  of  Henry  III.)  as  of  four  kinds,  which  he  calls  knight  service, 
free  socage,  pure  villenage,  and  villein  socage,  all  of  them  being 
upon  condition  of  services,  duties,  and  burdens  more  or  less  op- 

1  1  Washb.  on  Real  Property,  bk.  1,  2  2  Bla.  Comm.  51. 

ch.  2,  pi.  11.  8  2  Bla.  Comm.  54  et  seq. 


14  EEAL  AND  PERSONAL  PROPERTY.  §  14 

pressivo ;  ^  but  they  were  swept  away,  in  the  course  of  time,  with 
all  their  heavy  appendages,^  and  all  tenures  in  general  (except 
frank-almoign,  grand  serjeanty,  and  copyhold)  reduced  to  one  gen- 
eral species  of  tenure  called  free  and  common  soearje,  by  which  all 
freehold  lands  in  England  are  held  to  this  day.^ 

§  14.  Substantial  Abrogation  of  the  Feudal  Tenure  by  English 
Statutes.  —  It  is  readily  seen  that  the  tenure  of  the  feudatory, 
Tenure  of  Under  the  strictly  feudal  princijjle,  was  not  property 
lands  under     jjj  j^\^q  ^^^q  scusc  ;  for  wc  liavc  sccu  that  an  essential 

English  .  '  _      _ 

Statutes,  attribute  of  property  is  its  alienability,*  and  the  feudal 

tenant  could  neither  convey  his  right  to  another  during  his  life- 
time, nor  transmit  it  to  heirs  or  devisees  after  his  death.  The 
tenure  was  enlarged  in  the  course  of  time  ;  the  power  to  alienate,^ 
to  transmit,  first  by  descent,  and  finally  by  devise,^  was  accorded 
to  the  tenant,  so  that  at  the  present  time  there  is  but  little  prac- 
tical difference  between  the  absolute  ownership  enjoyed  by  the 
American  landholder  and  the  tenure  by  free  and  common  socage 
now  prevalent  in  England.''  But  this  enlargement  of  the  ten- 
ant's rights  cannot  be  looked  upon  as  the  fruit  of  the  logical 
development  of  the  feudal  tenure ;  it  is  rather  a  departure  from 
it,  an  abandonment  of  its  principles,  imperatively  demanded  by 
the  change  in  the  relations  between  the  lord  and  the  vassal,  —  a 
change  which  in  the  course  of  time  has  swept  away  every  condi- 
tion supporting  the  feudal  system.  In  so  far  as  lands  are  now 
recognized,  in  England,  as  property,  wliose  owners  enjoy  all  the 
rights  and  consequences  involved  in  absolute  ownership,  the 
feudal  tenure  has  been  abolished  in  reality,  though  the  name 
and-  the  forms  which  it  entailed  upon  the  common  law  have 
survived. 

1  2  Bla.  Comm.  61  et  seg.  *  Ante,  §§  3,  7. 

2  By  Stat.  12  Car.  II.  c.  24,  pi.  1,  2  ;  ^  In  the  year  1285,  by  the  statute  of 
"a  statute,"  says  Blackstone,  "  wliich  13  Edw.  I.,  called  the  Statute  of  Mer- 
was  a  grreater  acquisition  to  the  civil  prop-  chants,  it  was  provided  that  tlie  goods 
erty  of  this  kingdom  than  even  Magna  cnid  lands  of  the  debtor  shall  be  delivered 
Charta  itself;  since  that  only  pruned  the  to  the  creditor,  if  the  debt  be  not  dis- 
luxuriances  that  had  grown  out  of  the  charged;  and  in  1290  the  statute  known 
military  tenures,  and  thereby  preserved  as  "  Quia  emptoris  terrarum,"  18  Edw.  I. 
them  in  vigor;  but  the  statute  of  King  c.  1,  removed  all  restrictions  upon  the 
Charles  extirpated  the  whole  and  demol-  alienation  of  the  lands  of  freemen, 
ished  both  root  and  branches  "  :  2  Bla.  ^  gy  statute  of  32  Henry  VIII.  c.  1, 
Comm.  77.  followed   by  the  explanatory  statute  of 

3  1  Washb.  on  R.  P.,  bk.  1,  ch.  2,  pi.  34  &  35  Henry  VIII.  c.  5. 
42 ,  2  Bla.  Comm.  79.  1  2  Bla.  Comm.  78,  79. 


§  15  REAL   AND   PERSONAL   REPRESENTATIVES.  15 

§  15.  The  Devolution  of  Real  Property  to  the  Heir  or  Devisee,  and 
of  Personal  Property  to  the  Administrator  or  Executor.  —  The  com- 
mon law  of  Euglaiul  took  form  and  growth  under  the  inlluenccs 
of  the  feudal  system  in  its  original  vigor :  feudal  principles 
constitute  one  of  its  essential  features,  and  determine  wholly  its 
policy  in  respect  of  real  estate.  Whatever  rights  of  ownership 
are  now  enjoyed  by  English  landholders  have  been  granted  by 
acts  of  Parliament,  in  derogation  of  the  common  law  as  well  as  in 
conflict  with  feudal  principles.^  Since  at  common  law  no  Eng- 
lish subject  could  hold  land  allodially,  or  in  absolute 
ownership,  but  held  it  upon  condition  of  rendering  ser-  comiiticmTd  ' 
vices  and  duties  (some  of  them  being  military,  hence  olThe  vassal- 
excluding  from  a  genuine  feud  all  infants,  women, 
and  professed  monks,  as  incapable  of  bearing  arms),  and  under 
purely  voluntary  grant  {dedi  et  coricessi'),  from  the  feudal  lord,  it 
follows  that  feudal  grants  could  not  be  taken  for  the      ,,.  ,,  , 

°      _  not  liable  for 

debts  of  the  tenant,  either  before  or  after  his  death,  the  tenant's 
nor  devolve  by  succession  upon  his  heir  or  devisee. 
Nor  had  the  personal  representative  of  a  deceased  feudal  tenant 
the  slightest  claim  to  or  interest  in  the  fee  held  by  the 

and  reverted 

decedent,  for  the  tee  reverted   to  the  lord ;    neither  to  the  lord  on 
creditors  nor  next  of  kin  were  entitled  thereto,  and  if 
it  passed  to  the  heir  it  was  not  by  descent  or  in  right  of  the  an- 
cestor, but  by  a  renewed  grant  from  the  lord.^    Feuds 
became   hereditary,  and  the  unconditional  descent  of   ^y"enl"ved 
lands  from  the  ancestor  to  the  heir  was  secured  by  a   s''*"^- 
statute  which  abolished  the  court  of  wards  and  liveries,   „  ,  , 

.  ,.        .  .  .  1  .  Statute  abol- 

of  wardships,  liveries,  primer  seisins,  ousterlemains,   ishins;  feudal 

SGrVlCG 

values  and  forfeitures  of  marriage,  fines  for  alienation, 

and   tenures   by   homage,   knight   service,   and   eseuage.^      This 

statute  operated  as  a  confirmation  of  title  in  the  heir,       «      ,  ,.„ 

1  '   confirmed  title 

but  creditors  were  not  allowed  to  subject  lands  in  the  of  ti'^  heir, 

but  save  no 

hands  of  heirs  to  the  satisfaction  of  their  claims  against  claim  to 
the  ancestor ;  consequently  executors  and  administra- 
tors, whose  principal  function  it  is  to  pay  creditors  out  of  the 
estate  left  by  decedents,  had  no  interest  in  or  duties  with  reference 
to  such  lands.     The  law   subsequently  gave    recogni-   statutes  snb- 
tion  to  the  rights  of  creditors  in  a  series  of  statutes,   |o^p/Jvm|!nf 
culminating  in  3  &  4  William  IV.  c.  104,  which  makes   °^  '^''^^^• 

1  Ante,  §  14.  2  Ante,  §  1-3.  3  Stat.  12  Car.  II.  c.   24. 


16  REAL  AND  PERSONAL  PROPERTY.  §  16 

real  estate  of  a  deceased  person  liable  for  simple  contract  debts, 
as  well  as  for  specialties.  Thus,  by  a  number  of  statutes,  the 
tenure  of  English  landholders  was  made  equal,  in  every  practical 
respect,  to  absolute  ownership,  investing  the  tenant  with  all  the 
rights,  and  subjecting  him  to  all  the  duties,  of  allodial  owners ; 
while  the  common  law,  in  its  forms  of  procedure,  in  the  nature  of 
the  remedies  and  defences  accorded  to  litigants,  and  in  the  prin- 
ciples governing  its  technical  construction,  is  feudal  in  its  theory. 

This  dual  nature  of  the  English  law  sometimes  produces  antag- 
onism between  its  content  and  its  form,  and  thus  violates  in  its 
Antagonism  provisions  the  strict  requirements  of  logic ;  a  notable 
tiie'stamtoiT  instance  of  which  may  be  found  in  the  rule  that  the 
changes.  legal  ownership  of  personal  property  descends  to  the 

executor  or  administrator,  but  that  of  real  property  to  the  devisee 
or  heir.  The  rule  arose  out  of  the  feudal  tenure  of  lands,  which 
could  not,  as  above  shown,  go  to  the  personal  representative, 
because  neither  the  creditors  nor  the  heirs  had  any  right  thereto. 
The  gradual  conversion  of  this  tenure  into  an  ownership  possess- 
ing all  the  essential  qualities  of  property  except  the  name, 
removed  the  foundation  and  reason  of  the  rule  ;  but  the  rule 
remained,  —  a  form  void  of  essence,  a  body  from  which  the  soul 
has  fled. 

It  is  very  important,  for  the  purpose  of  ascertaining  the  scope 
and  meaning  of  the  numerous  rules,  statutory  enactments,  and 
judicial  decisions  bearing  upon  the  distinction  between  real  and 
personal  property,  to  keep  continually  in  mind  that  they  are 
traceable  to  a  condition  of  things  no  longer  existing  in  England, 
and  which  never  had  existence  in  America. 

§   16.      Incongruity  of  the  Rule  in  America.  —  The  common  law 

distinction  between  real  and  personal  property  is  still  recognized 

in  most  of  the  American  States,  and  with  it  the  doc- 
Mischief  pro-  .  1      J      J 1        T      • 
duced  by  the     trme  that  real   property  descends  to  the  devisee  or 

thrfo^mmoV  licir,  and  personal  property  to  the  executor  or  admin- 
law  rule.  istrator.     This  doctrine  was  received  along  with  the 

common  law  of  which  it  forms  a  part.  Its  incongruity,  more  con- 
spicuous in  a  country  in  which  feudalism  had  never  obtained  foot- 
hold, together  with  the  attempts  made  in  many  of  the  States  to 
abolish  or  modify  the  rule  as  inconsistent  with  the  true  theory  of 
property,  has  produced  much  confusion  and  inconsistency  in  the 
decisions  of  the  courts  of  the  several  States  touching  the  law  of 


§  16  INCONGRUITY    OF    THE   RULE.  17 

real  estate  of  deceased  persons.  The  common  law,,  as  well  as  the 
statutes  of  England  enacted  before  the  settlement  of  the  Colonies, 
is  not  only  the  basis  uj)on  which  the  new  States  built  up  their  own 
systems,  but  was  enacted  as  law  in  almost  every  rftate,^  introducing, 
save  as  against  aOirniative  legislative  modification,  the  feudal 
principles  which  it  embodies.  These  princii)les  are  so  interwoven 
with  common  law  jurisprudence,  that  to  remove  them  would  de- 
stroy the  whole  texture.^  It  seems  to  be  so  difficult,  Indeed,  en- 
tirely to  eliminate  from  our  codes  those  rules  and  doctrines  which 
constitute  an  essential  element  of  the  common  law,  but  which 
grew  out  of  conditions  utterly  different  from  our  own,  that  but 
few  legislatures  have  undertaken  the  task  of  building  up  a  purely 
American  system  ;  and  what  efforts  are  made  by  legislatures  in 
this  direction  are  often  thwarted  by  the  conservative  spirit  of  law- 
yers and  judges,  in  construing  American  statutes  from  the  stand- 
point of  the  common  law.  In  some  of  the  States,  however,  the 
distinction  between  personal  and  real  property,  as  affecting  the 
course  of  its  descent,  has  been  entirely  abolished,^  and  in  most 
of  them  the  common  law  rule  more  or  less  modified.  These 
attempts  to  adapt  the  common  law  to  the  condition  of  things  in 
America,  in  which  the  legislative  and  judicial  authorities  of  each 
State  proceed  according  to  their  own  views  of  the  policy  demanded 
for  the  interest  of  its  citizens,  either  retaining  the  common  law, 
or  modifying  it  to  a  greater  or  less  extent,  or  cutting  loose  from 
it  entirely,  have  resulted  in  a  bewildering  labyrinth  of  conflicting 
decisions,  not  only  among  the  several  States,  but  in  the  States 
themselves.* 

1  Except  Louisiana.  advisers,  but  a  positive  injury  to  credi- 

2  Tilghnian,  C.  J.,  in  Lyle  v.  Ridi-  tors  and  distributees,  in  its  mischievous 
ards,  9  Serg.  &  R.  322,  333.  It  is  held  in  tendency  to  destroy  faith  in  tlie  validity 
this  case  that  tlie  common  law  doctrine  of  of  the  title  to  property  which  executors 
forfeiture,  for  the  purpose  of  barring  con-  and  administrators  find  it  necessary  to 
tingent  remainders,  lias  been  extended  sell  in  winding  up  the  estates  under  their 
to  Pennsylvania.  charge.     See,  on  this  point,  the  remarks 

5*  See  post,  §  337.  of  the  Hon.  John  F.  Dillon  in  his  address 

*  The  diversity  of  the  American  law  before  the  Alabama  Bar  Association,  22 

on  this  point,  and  on   the  scope  of  the  Am.  L.  Rev.  30,  37,  entitled  "A  Century 

jurisdiction   of    probate   courts   and   the  of  American  Law  ";  and  of  the  Hon.  I)a- 

conclusiveness  of  their  judgment  (see,  on  vid  Dudley  Field  before  a  reunion  of  the 

this  point,  post,  §§  143  et  seq.)  is  not  only  Yale  Kent  Club  at    New  Haven,  entitled 

the  source  of  distressing  uncertainty  and  "  Improvements  in  the  Law,"  to  be  found 

anxiety  to  administrators  and  their  legal  in  22  Am.  L.  Rev.  57,  61. 
VOL.  I. —  2 


TITLE    FIRST. 

OF  THE  DEVOLUTION   OP   PROPERTY   ON  THE 
DEATH   OF   ITS   OWNER. 


PART     FIRST. 

OF  THE  DEVOLUTION   AS   DETERMINED   BY  THE  ACT 
OF   THE   OWNER. 


BOOK    FIRST. 

OF   TESTAMENTARY   DISPOSITION   OF   PROPERTY. 

The  scope  of  the  present  treatise  forbids  an  exhaustive  disqui- 
sition on  the  Law  of  Wills  and  Testaments ;  nor  is  there  any  need 
for  such  an  undertaking,  the  whole  ground  being  amply  covered 
by  the  able  and  thorough  work  of  Jarman,  the  fifth  American 
edition  of  which  contains  references  to  the  latest  American  decis- 
ions relating  to  the  subject  up  to  the  time  of  its  publication,  with 
explanatory  comments  by  the  American  editor.^  But  it  is  una- 
voidable to  refer  to  the  principles  upon  which  the  law  is  based, 
and  to  incorporate  into  the  present  work  some  of  the  details  bear- 
ing upon  testamentary  capacity,  the  form,  execution,  attestation, 
revocation,  and  probate  of  wills,  as  well  as,  at  the  appropriate 
time,  to  point  out  the  principal  rules  of  construction,  and  the 
principles  upon  which  the  will  is  carried  into  effect. 

1  "  A  Treatise  on    Wills,  by  Thomas     M.  Bigelow,  Ph.  D.,  of  the  Boston  Bar. 
•Jarman,  Esq.     The  Fifth  American  from     Little,  Brown,  &  Co.,  1881." 
the  Fourth  English  Edition.     By  Melville 


S  17  PROPERTY   DISPOSABLE   BY    WILL.  19 


CHAPTER  III. 

OP   THE   EXTERNAL   LIMITS   PLACED    UPON   TESTAMENTARY    CAPACITY. 

§  17.  Limitation  of  the  Property  disposable  by  Will.  —  It  may 
be  proper,  in  the  first  place,  to  consider  what  part  of  a  man's 
property  is  subject  to  his  testamentary  disposition.  In  this  par- 
ticular the  practical  development  of  the  English  law  is  not  in 
strict  harmony  with  the  logical  notion  of  property,  which  seems 
to  demand  a  restriction  of  the  power  within  narrower  limits  than 
are  placed  upon  it  in  either  England  or  America.  Contrary  to 
the  progress  of  testamentary  law  in  Rome  and  on  the  European 
continent,  which  proceeded  from  practically  unlimited  power  of  dis- 
position (Law  of  the  Twelve  Tables)  to  a  limitation  thereof  (^Lex 
Falcidia)^  the  legislation  of  England  has  constantly  enlarged  the 
powers  of  testators  in  this  respect,^  until  now,  both  in  England 
and  America,  the  right  to  dispose  of  property  by  will  is  as  broad 
and  comprehensive  as  the  right  of  disposition  while  living.^ 

Without  inquiring  into  the  distinctions  as  to  the  various  kinds 
of  property  which  may  be  devised  or  bequeathed,  and  whether 
property  acquired  by  the  testator  after  the  time  of  executing  his 
will  passes  thereby,^  it  is  necessary  to  remember,  in  this  connec- 
tion, the  various  provisions  existing  at  common  law  and  enacted 
by  the  several  States  in  favor  of  the  widow  and  surviving  minor 
children,  as  limitations  upon  the  testator's  power  over  his  prop- 
erty. These  subjects  will  be  treated  hereafter  in  connection  with 
the  subjects  of  dower,*  support  of  the  family,^  and  homestead.^ 

In  Louisiana,  whose  code  of  laws  retains  many  of  the  principles 
of  the  civil  law,  the  testator's  power  to  disinherit  his  children  and 

1  "    ...  Glanvil  will  inform  us,  that  the  reign  of  Charles  L  to  be  the  general 

by  the  common  law,  as  it  stood  in  the  law  of  the  land."    2  Bla.  Comm.  491. 

reign  of  Henry  II.,  a  man's  goods  were  ^  Ross   v.   Duncan,   Freem.   Ch.   587, 

to  be  divided   into  three  equal  parts,  of  598  et  seq. 

which  one  went  to  his  heirs  or  lineal  de-  ^  This   subject  will  be   treated   in  a 

scendants,  another  to  his  wife,  and  the  subsequent  part  of  this  work.     See  post, 

third  was  at  his  own  disposal.  .  .  .  This  §  419;  also  §  63. 

continued  to  be  the  law  of  the  land  at  *  Post,  §  105  et  seq. 

the  time  of  Magna  Charta,  .  .  .  and  Sir  &  p„st,  §  77. 

Henry  Finch  lays  it  down  expressly  in  ^  Post,  §  64. 


20  EXTERNAL    LIMITS    ON    TESTAMENTARY    CAPACITY.        §  18 

father  or  mother  is  Hiulted  to  cases  eiiiauerated  by  the  statute, 
and  based  upon  their  own  misconduct,  the  particulars  of  which 
must  be  alleged  in  the  will ;  ^  the  disinherited  parties  being 
allowed  to  traverse  such  allegation  and  avoid  the  will  if  found  to 
be  untrue.^  So  also  "  donationes  inter  vivos,  or  mortis  causa, 
cannot  exceed  two  thirds  of  the  property,  if  the  disposers,  having 
no  children,  leave  a  father,  mother,  or  both."  ^ 

§  18.  Limitations  upon  Testamentary  Capacity.  —  We  have  seen 
that  the  power  of  testamentary  disposition  is  an  essential  element 
in  the  nature  of  property,^  because  the  right  to  hold 
tamentary  property  Includcs  the  right  to  alienate  it  in  such 
capacity.  manner  as  the  owner  may,  in  the  exercise  of  his  free 
will,  determine.^  It  follows  from  this,  that  every  person  may 
make  testamentary  disposition  of  his  property  who  is  capable, 
with  reference  thereto,  of  exercising  free  will.^  But  this  defini- 
tion of  testamentary  capacity,  although  perhaps  strictly  accurate 
in  the  abstract,  is  too  general  and  vague  to  serve  as  a  sufficient 
„  ,  rule  of  law.     To  enable  iudges  and  iuries  to  act  with 

Kities  neces-  o       o  o 

sary  to  deter-  the  Certainty  and  uniformity  required  for  the  purposes 
iiieiitary  of  justicc  ill  ascertaining  the  validity  of  testamentary 
capacity.  dispositions,  particular  rules  are  established  by  legisla- 
tive enactment  and  judicial  authority,  by  means  of  which  the  law 
is  rendered  positive  and  certain,  so  far  as  human  intelligence  can 
make  it.  These  particular,  positive  rules  of  law,  themselves 
established  to  carry  out  the  fundamental  principle,  operate  as  a 
limitation  upon  the  discretional  scope  of  judges  and  juries  ;  with- 
out which  the  line  of  division  between  testamentary  capacity  and 
incapacity  would  necessarily  be  fixed  by  each  person  acting  in  a 
judicial  character,  now  here,  now  there,  according  to  the  personal 
impression  of  the  moment,  producing  upon  the  community  rather 
the  effect  of  a  misleading  ignis  fatuus,  than  serving  as  a  light  to 
guide  them  in  the  knowledge  of  the  law. 

1  Code,  art.  1609.  having  attained  the  age  of  majority,  or 

2  Code,  art.  1616.  of  twenty-one  years,  not  under  legal  dis- 

3  Code,  art.  1481.  Cole  v.  Cole,  19  ability,  are  competent  to  dispose  of  their 
Mart.  (7  n.  s.)  414,  419,  overruled  as  to  property  by  will.  So  in  Delaware,  Indi- 
the  amount  of  the  legitime  of  a  father  ana,  Kentucky,  Maine,  Massachusetts, 
or  mother  in  Marks  v.  Marks,  35  La.  Michigan,  Minnesota,  Mississippi,  Ne- 
An.  993.  braska,    New    Hampshire,  New    Jersey, 

*  Ante,  §  7.  North  Carolina,  Ohio,  Oregon,  Pennsyl- 

5  Ante,  §  3.  vania,   and  Vermont.      See   Post,   §   20, 

6  Hence,  in   most  States,  all  persons     p.  25,  notes  3  and  4. 


§  18  LIMITATIONS    UPON    TESTAMENTARY    CAPACITY.  21 

Til  the  nature  of  thint^s  such  rules  must  be  negative  in  form, 
because  they  operate  as  limitations,  —  particularizing,  defining  the 
general  law,  as  exhaustively  stated  in  the  general  for- 
mula, Every  person  capable  of  exercising  free  will  may   are  nRi,'ative 
make  a  valid  testamentary  disposition  of  his  property.    '"  '^""' 
The  first  step  will    therefore  be   to  state  the  proposition    itself 
in  its  negative  form  :    No  person  is  capable  of  exercising  testa- 
mentary power  who  is,  for  any  reason,  incapable  of  exercising  free 
will ;  from  which  the  classification  of  testamentary  incapacity,  or 
of  persons    incapable    of   making  wills  because   they  lack  testa- 
mentary capacity,  naturally  arises.     Manifold  are  the  distinctions 
drawn,  in  the  numerous  books  which  treat  of  this  subject,  as  to 
the  sources  of  testamentary  incapacity  ;  ^  it  will  be  sufficient,  how- 
ever, for  the  purposes  of  this  work,  to  observe  the  distinction 
between  external  limitations  upon  the  will,  or  disabili-   incapacity 
ties  created  by  the  law  in  furtherance  of  public  policy,   ext.'rnarre- 
and  incapacity  arising  from  an  immanent  defect  of  the  ffictionsami 

^  "^  °  _  iiDnianent de- 

mind  by  reason  of  which  the  person  is  devoid  of  the    ^^ct  of  mind. 

reasoning  power  and  firmness  of  intellect  necessary  to  realize  his 
own  will. 

To  the  former  belong  the  legal  presumption  of  want  of  discre- 
tion arising  from  infancy,  the  merger  of  a  married  woman's  per- 
sonality in  that  of  her  husband,  the  incapacity  of  an  alien  to 
devise  lands,  etc. 

1  Goflolphin,  in  his  "  Orphan's  Legacy  :  he  is  careful  to  add:    "But  here   note, 

or   a   Testanientar3^   Abriilgment,"  reck-  That  all  the  said  Persons  are  not  in  all 

ons  five  classes  of  persons  incapable  of  Cases  absolutely  and  utterly  Intestable, 

making  testaments:  "1.  Such  as  are  by  but  in  some  certain  Cases  only,  as  will 

Law  prohibited  for  want  of  Discretion  ;  as  more  distinctly  appear  hereafter."  —  God. 

Children,  Mad  or  Lunatick  Persons,  Idi-  on  Wills,  ch.  vii. 

ots,  Old  Persons  grown  Childish  through  Williams,  the  most  accurate  and  logi- 

excess    of   Age,    and    Persons    Actually  cal,  and  at  the  same  time  most  careful  and 

Drunk.     2.  For  want  of  Freedom  or  Lib-  diligent,  and   therefore   thoroughly    reli- 

erty,  or  that  are  not  Siti  juris  in  all  re-  able  author  on  Testamentary  Law,  dis- 

spects  ;  as  Villains,  Captives,  and  Women  tinguishes  between  what  he  calls  "  three 

Covert.     3.  For  want  of    some  of  their  grounds  of   incapacity:    1.  the   want   of 

principal    Senses;  as   Deaf,  and    Dumb,  sufficient  legal  discretion ;  2.  the  want  of 

and  Blind.    4.  Such  as  are  Criminous ;  as  liberty  or  free  will;  3.  the  criminal  con- 

Traytors,  Felons,  wilful  Feio's  de  se,  and  duct  of  the  party"  :  Wms.  on  Ex.  [12]  ; 

the  like.     5.  Such  as  are  prohibited  by  to  which  lie  adds,  as  not  strictly  subsum- 

reason   of    some   certain   Legal    Inipedi-  able   under  any  one  of  these  heads,  the 

ments  ;  as  outlawed  Persons,  Persons  at  cases  of  aliens  and  of  the  reigning  sov- 

the  very  Point  of  Deatli,  Alien  Enemies,  ereign.      This   division  seems    better  to 

and    such   others."      This   classification,  accord  with  the  ancient  learning  on  the 

however,  does  not  seem  to  satisfy  him,  for  subject,  than  with  strict  logic. 


90 


EXTERNAL   LIMITS   ON    TESTAMENTAKY    CAPACITY.        §  19 


'J'o  the  latter  may  be  referred  idiocy,  lunacy,  delirium,  or  any 
condition  of  weakness  or  unsoundness  of  mind  by  reason  of 
uhich  a  person's  acts  or  conduct  are  not  attributable  to  his  own 
free  will. 

§19.  Incapacity  of  Aliens.  —  The  testamentary  incapacity  of 
aliens  does  not  extend  to  personal  property ;  ^  and  the  invalidity 
Incapacity  of  of  the  dcvisc  of  real  estate  by  them  arises  out  of  their 
to  leahTroJl'^'  incapacity  to  hold  real  estate.  Considerations  of  pub- 
eityoniy.  lie  policy  require  that  no  alien,  whether  friend  or 
enemy,  shall  have  title  to  lands  as  against  the  sovereignty  ;  ^  but 
an  alien  may  take  land  by  purchase  or  devise,  and  hold  the  title 
subject  to  the  right  of  the  sovereignty  to  procure  an  escheat  or 
forfeiture  upon  information  and  office  found.^  Until  the  land  is 
so  seized,  or  the  alien  owner  in  some  way  dispossessed,  he  has 
complete  dominion  over  the  same,  and  may  convey  it  to  a  pur- 
chaser ;  ^  but  upon  the  alien's  death,  although  he  leaves  heirs 
who  would  be  capable  of  taking  if  he  were  a  citizen,  the  land 
escheats.^  This  is  the  rule  at  common  law,  according  to  which 
aliens  cannot  take  real  estate  by  descent,  or  by  operation  of  law  in 
anv  respect ;  ^   but  a  great  chanue  has  taken  place  in 

Change  from  -  r  o  ..  ± 

the  common  pcccnt  ycars,  botli  in  England  and  America,  in  the  di- 
rection of  obliterating  all  distinction  between  citizens 
and  aliens  in  the  ownership  of  property.  Most  of  the  States  now 
enable  alien  friends  not  only  to  acquire  lands  by  purchase  and  de- 
siates  in        visc,  but  also  by  descent,  and  to  hold,  alien,  and  devise, 

which  aliens  -  •,,i  ,t  t       •   -i  t   • 

may  take  by    and  transmit  the  same  by  descent,^  either  iincondition- 
conditiomiUy.  ^^b'?  ^^  ill  Alabama,^  Colorado,^   Florida,^*'  Georgia,^^ 

1  Evan's  Appeal,  51  Conn.  435,  439.         v.  Gardner,  7  Watts,  455,  458;  Maynard  v. 

2  Commonwealth  v.  Martin,  5  Munf.     Maynard,  30  Hun,  227,  230. 

117,  119.  6  Montgomery  v.  Dorion,  7  N.  H.  475, 

3  1  Redf.  on  Wills,  p.  11,  pi.  5;  Fairfax  480;  Blight  v.  Rochester,  7  Wheat.  535, 
V.  Hunter,  7  Cr.  603,  619  et  seq. ;  Fox  v.  544 ;  Dawson  v.  Godfrey,  4  Cra.  321,  322  ; 
Southack,  12  Mass.  143,  146;  per  Dyk-  People  v.  Conklin,  2  Hill,  (N.  Y.)67,  G9. 
man,  J.,  in  Maynard  v.  Maynard,  36  Hun,  ^  Howard  v.  Moot,  64  N.  Y.  262,  270; 
227,  229  ;  and  see  post,  on  the  subject  of  Lumb  v.  Jenkins,  100  Mass.  527  ;  Doe  i-. 
Escheats,  §§  131  et  seg.  Robertson,  11  Wheat.  332,  357;  Billings 

4  Sheaffe  r.  O'Neil,  1  Mass.  256 ;  t>.  Hauver,  65  Cal.  593;  Kilfoy  y.  Powers, 
McCreery  v.  AUender,  4  H.  &  McH.  409,  3  Dem.  (N.  Y.)  198. 

412 ;  Marshall  v.  Conrad,  5  Call,  364,  402;  »  Code,  1886,  §  1914. 

Scanlan  i'.  Wright,   13   Pick.   528,  529;  »  Gen.  St.  1883,  p.  132,  §  61. 

Ramires  v.  Kent,  2  Cal.  558,  560.  i"  Dig.  1881,  p.  470,  §  7. 

5  See  post,  §§  131  et  seq.;  Slater  v.  "  Code,  1882,  §  1661.  Alien  friends, 
Nason,  15  Pick.  345,  349 ;  Mooers  v.  "  shall  have  the  privilege  of  purchasing, 
White,  6  Johns.  Ch.  360,  365;  Rubeck  holding,  and  conveying  real  estate." 


§20 


INCAPACITY    OF   ALIENS    AND    INFANTS. 


23 


Illinois,^  Indiana,^  lowa,-^  Kansas,*  Mai ne,^  Maryland,^  Massachu- 
setts/ Minnesota,^  Mississippi,^  Missouri,^'^  Nebraska,"    Nevada,^^ 
New  Jersey ,^^  North  Carolina,^*  Ohio,^^  Oregon,^^  Rhode  Island,'^ 
South  Carolina,^^  Tcnncssee,^^  Virginia,^''  Wisconsin, ^^  and  West 
Virginia;  '-^^  or  upon  condition  of  bona  fide  residence  in    oruponcon- 
the  State  or  United  States,  as  in  Arkansas,^^  Connecti-   ^enc"  i'n '^^'*'' 
cut,^'*  Kentucky ,2^  Michigan,^^  New  Ilampshire,'-^"  New    U.  states. 
York,^^  Pennsylvania ;  2^   or,   that  the  inheritance   be   Oroncon- 
chiimcd  within  a  time  limited,  as  in  California  ^'^  and   inheritance 
Texas.^'    The  Naturalization  Act  accom{)lishcs  the  same   with'rn'Tcer- 
result  in  England.^^     Both  the  English  and  most  of  the   tain  time. 
American  statutes  provide,  that  alienage  in  any  of  the   Alienage  of 

'  o  ./  ancestors  no 

grantors  or  ancestors  through  whom  title  to  real  estate   detect  in  title, 
is  claimed  shall  constitute  no  defect  in  such  title.^ 

§20.  Incapacity  of  Infants. —  The  incapacity  of  infants  arises 
necessarily  out  of  their  want  of  discretion.  But  the  gradations 
of  mental  capacity  are  impossible  of  accurate  measure-  ^         •.     , 

J  •'  ^  Incapacity  of 

incut ;  and,  since  it  is  impracticable  to  ascertain  the   infants,  cfisa- 

.»,.,.  «.    .         1        bilitv  attach- 

precise  moment  when  an  miant  s  mmd  is  sumciently   ingtoage 
matured  to  act  rationally  upon  the  ordinarj'-  affairs  of 


1  Starr  &  Cur.  An.  St.  1885,  p.  264, 
ch.  vi.,  par.  1  and  2. 

2  Rev.  St.  1881,  §  2967. 

3  Rev.  Code,  1886,  §  1908. 

<  Const.  1859,  Bill  of  Rights,  §  17  ; 
Compiled  L.  Kans.  1885,  p.  50,  §  99. 

5  Rev.  St.  1883,  p.  604,  §  2. 

6  Rev.  Code,  1878,  p.  398,  §  8. 

7  Pub.  St.  1882,  p.  744,  §  1. 

8  Gen.  St.  1878,  p.  820,  §  41. 

9  Rev.  Code,  1880,  §  1230. 
w  Rev.  St.  1879,  §  325. 

11  Comp.  St.  1885,  eh.  73,  §  54. 

1-^  Laws,  1879,  p.  51;  Gen.  St.  1885, 
§  2655.  An  exception  is  made  in  this  State 
against  subjects  of  the  Chinese  Empire. 
But  see  State  v.  Preble,  18  Nev.  251. 

«  Rev.  1877,  p.  6,  §  3. 

14  Code  of  1883,  §  7. 

16  Rev.  St.  1880,  §  4173. 

i«  Code,  1887,  §  2988,  p.  1352. 

1'  Pub.  St.  1882,  p   442,  §  6. 

18  Gen.  St.  1882,  §  1847. 

10  Code,  1884,  §  2804  et  seq. 

2»  Code,  1887,  §  43. 

21  Rev.  St.  1878,  §  2200. 

22  Code,  1887,  ch.  70,  §§  1,  2. 

23  Dig.  1884,  §§  232  et  seq. 


2*  Gen.  St.  1888.  §  15.  An  exception  is 
made  in  this  State  in  favor  of  French  citi- 
zens, who  are  classed  with  resident  aliens. 
Non-resident  aliens  may  hold  and  transmit 
real  estate  used  for  mining  purposes. 

25  Gen.  St.  1883,  p.  191,  §  1.  After  de- 
claring his  intention  of  becoming  a  citi- 
zen of  the  United  States. 

-6  Const.  1850,  art.  xviii.  §  13. 

27  Gen.  L.  1878,  p.  325,  §  16. 

28  Banks  &  Br.  Rev.  St.  p.  2164,  §§  15 
et  seq.  But  not  exceeding  two  thousand 
acres. 

29  Bright.  Purd.  Dig.  1883,  p.  84  et  seq. 
Alien  enemies  having  declared  their  in- 
tention to  become  citizens  are  allowed  to 
hold  lands  not  exceeding  two  hundred 
acres  in  quantity  nor  twenty  thousand 
dollars  in  value ;  alien  friends,  not  e.v 
ceeding  five  tliousand  acres. 

3"  Five  years,  after  which  the  property 
escheats.  Civ.  Code,  §§  671,  672;  State 
V.  Smith,  70  Cal.  153. 

31  Within  nine  j'ears.  Rev.  St.  1879. 
Art.  1658. 

82  33  Vict.  c.  14,  §  2. 

38  See  post,  on  the  subject  of  Descent 
of  Property,  §  76. 


24  EXTERNAL   LIMITS   ON    TESTAMENTARY   CAPACITY.        §  20 

life,  the  law  fixes  a  definite  age  before  the  attainment  of  which  it' 
conclusively  presumes  the  want  of  discretion.  It  is  evident  that, 
whatever  age  may  be  fixed  upon,  there  will  be  many  whose  mind 
is  riper  and  better  able  to  understand  the  nature  of  human  trans- 
actions before  they  reach  it  than  that  of  others  who  have  passed 
this  age.  The  limitation,  therefore,  is  an  external  one,  based  not 
so  much  upon  mental  incapacity,  but  arising  out  of  a  legal  disa- 
bility. The  necessity  of  classing  infancy  with  external  limitations 
upon  testamentary  power  is  apparent  also  from  the  diversity  of 
the  rules  laid  down  with  regard  thereto  in  the  several  codes. 
Common  Fo^  ^^  common  law  male  infants  of  fourteen,  and 
law  rule.  female  infants  of  twelve  years  of  age,  were  held  com- 
petent to  make  wills  in  regard  to  their  personal  estate.^  This 
rule  was  abolished  in    England  by  statute,^  in    1838, 

Abolished  by        ,  .   ,        11  Tj        -n    1  '  l        +1 

English  Stat-  wluch  allows  uo  valid  will  by  any  person  under  the 
age  of  twenty-one  years,  whether  of  personal  or  real 
property ;  but  in  many  of  the  American  States  the  common  law 
Rules  ob-  distinction  is  still  observed.  In  Florida  ^  and  South 
served  in        Carolina  the  statute  fixes  the  age  of  twenty-one  years 

American  .         ., 

States.  as  necessary  to  devise  real  estate,  but  is  silent  as  to 

personal  property.  In  Tennessee^  no  age  qualification  is  men- 
tioned for  either  real  or  personal  property ;  hence  the  common 
law  remains  unchanged  in  each  of  these  three  States.  In  New 
York  males  of  eighteen  and  females  of  sixteen,  in  Georgia ^  infants 
of  fourteen  and  in  Colorado  of  seventeen  years  of  age,  and  in 
Maryland  parties  "  when  competent  to  contract  and  make  deed," 
may  bequeath  personal  property.  In  a  number  of  States  the  age 
required  of  either  sex  is  twenty-one  to  devise  real,  and  eighteen 
to  bequeath  personal  property;  ^^  in  others,  the  age  of  twenty-one 
for  males  and  eighteen  for  females  is  fixed  as  necessary  to  will 

1  The  rule  is  not  so  much  that  of  the  »  Meyer  v.  Meyer,  7  Fla.  292,  204. 
common  law,  which  seems  to  fix  the  age          *  Moore   v.    Steele,    10    Humph.    562. 
of  seventeen  years  as  the  period  of  testa-  565 ;  Campbell  v.  Browder,  7  Lea,  240. 
mentary   capacity,   but   introduced   into  ^  O'Byrne  r.  Feely,  61  Ga.  77,  85. 
England    by    the    ecclesiastical    courts,          ^  in    Alabama,     Arkansas,     Oregon, 
which   there   had   exclusive   jurisdiction  Ehode  Island,  Virginia,  and  West  Vir- 
over  the  probate  of  wills  of  personalty,  ginia.    In  Arkansas  the  real  and  personal 
and  is  traceable  to  the  civil  law.     See  property  of  a  married  female  is  made  her 
Smallwood  v.  Brickhouse,  2  Mod.  315;  separate   property    by  the    Constitution, 
Hyde  v.  Hyde,  Free.  Ch.  316 ;  Arnold  v.  and   may  be  devised  as  if   she  were  a 
Earle,  2  Lee  Eccl.  R.  529,  531.  feme  sole.     Const.,  art.  xii.  §  6. 

2  1  Vict.  c.  26,  amended  by  15  &  16 
Vict.  c.  24. 


§  21  INCAPACITY   OF   MARRIED    WOMEN.  25 

either  real  or  ])crsonal  jd-ojicrty.^  In  Missouri  males  may  will 
personal  projjerty  at  eighteen,  but  must  be  twenty-one  to  devise 
real  estate,  while  females  may  will  eitiier  personal  or  real  estate  at 
eighteen.  In  several  States  wills  of  realty  as  well  as  of  personalty 
may  be  made  by  either  sex  at  eighteen  ;^  in  Wisconsin  the  mar- 
riage of  a  female,  and  in  Texas  the  marriage  of  a  male  or  female, 
enables  such  person  to  dispose  of  real  or  personal  property  by 
will  before  reaching  the  age  of  majority.  But  by  far  the  greater 
number  of  States  require  a  testator  of  cither  sex  to  be  of  full  age,^ 
or  of  the  age  of  twenty-one  years,*  to  dispose  of  either  real  or 
personal  property  by  will. 

A  rule  of  computing  time  should  be  noticed  in  connection  witli 
the  question  of  infancy  and  majority,  which  is  a  departure 
from   the   ordinary  rule.      At  common    law,  in   com- 

.  Computing 

putmg  the  age  of  a  person  tor  testamentary  purposes,  time  of  ma- 
the  day  of  his  birth  is  included.  As  the  law  does  not  ^°"-' 
recognize  fractions  of  a  day,  but  directs  both  the  day  of  the  birth 
and  of  the  anniversary  to  be  reckoned  as  full  days,  it  results  that 
a  person  born  on  the  first  day  of  January,  1880,  in  the  last  hour 
of  that  day,  will  attain  majority  on  the  first  instant  of  the  thirty- 
first  day  of  December,  1900,  —  nearly  two  days  less  than  twenty- 
one  years.^     The  rule  is  recognized  in  several  American  States.^ 

§  21.  Incapacity  of  Married  Women.  —  The  disability  attaching 
to  married  women  to  dispose  of  their  property  by  last  will  is 
peculiar  to  the  English  law.  It  arises  out  of  the  fiction  Coverture 
at  common  law,  that  coverture  merges  the  personal  f^f^ent'frv^'' 
existence  of  the  wife  in  that  of  the  husband ;  it  is  said  t^^^pacity. 
that  a  married  woman  has  no  legal  existence  apart  from  her  hus- 
band." This  rule  was  not  changed  in  England  by  the  several 
statutes  concerning  wills ;  ^  but  in  the  Married  Women's  Property 

1  In  Illinois,  Iowa,  Kansas.  "scarcely  less  tlian  a  blunder,  which,  for 

2  In  California,  Connecticut,  Nevada,  the  good  sense  of  the  thing"  he  wished 

3  Massachusetts,     Michigan,     Minne-  to  see  set  right.     1   Redf.   on   Wills,  20 
sota,  Nebraska,  New  Jersey,  Ohio,  Ver-  ct  seq. 

niont.  6  State  r.  Clarke,  -3  Harr.  (Del.)  557, 

*  Delaware,  Indiana,  Kentucky,  Maine,  558;  Hamlin  r.  Stevenson,  4  Dana,  597  ; 

Mississippi,  New  Hampshire,  North  Caro-  Wells  v.  Wells,  6  Ind.  447. 
Una,  Oregon,  Pennsylvania.  7  Murray  v.   Barlee,  3  M.  &  K.  209, 

s  1  Jarm.  on   Wills,  *45.     Judge  Ked-  220. 
field  cites  Svvinburn,  Blackstone,    Kent,  »  Married   women  are  expressly  dis- 

Bingham,  and  Metcalf  as  so  laying  down  ablcd  by  the  statute  of  1  Vict.  c.  26,  nor 

the  rule,  and  takes  occasion  to  express  his  was  the  rule  changed  in  the  amendatory 

emphatic  dissent  therefrom,  deeming  it  statute  of  15  &  16  Vict.  c.  24. 


26  EXTERNAL   LIMITS   ON   TEST  AMENTA  IIY   CAPACITY,         §  21 

Act  of  1882  ^  married  women  are  enabled  to  hold,  and  dispose  of 

"  by  will  or  otherwise,"  any  real  or  personal  property,  in  the 

same  manner  as  if  they  were  femes  sole ;  since  which  time  wills 

of  married  women  are  entitled  to  general  probate,  including  all 

property  disposed  of  in  the  will.^     Exceptions  are  men- 
Exceptions  to    .        ,   .      -.^     ,.  ,  ,.        ,        ,  .  1 
the  rule  at      tioncd  m  English  cases,  according  to  which  married 

common  hiw.  ,  i  i  i-i         -n 

women  may,  even  at  common  law,  make  vahd  wills ; 
but  it  will  be  noticed  that  the  term  exceptions  is  scarcely  applica- 
ble, as  the  circumstances  under  which  the  power  is  recognized 
arc  not  strictly  subsumable  under  the  rule. 

The  first  of  these  exceptions  is,  that  a  married  woman  may  will 
her  personal  property  with  the  consent  of  her  husband.^  But 
since  at  common  law  the  personal  property  of  the  wife  is  abso- 
lutely that  of  the  husband,  his  consent  to  its  testamentary  dispo- 
sition is  in  reality  the  gift  of  the  husband  to  the  wife's  legatee ;  * 
and  this  view  is  recognized  by  the  power  vested  in  the  husband 
to  retract  his  consent,  even  after  the  wife's  death,  at  any  time 
before  probate  of  the  will.° 

Another  exception  is  said  to  be  the  power  of  a  married  woman 
to  dispose  by  will  (without  the  husband's  consent)  of  property 
which  she  holds  in  auter  droit,  as  where  she  takes  as  executrix ;  ^ 
but  this  affects  only  such  property  as  passes  by  representation, 
and  includes  none  in  which  she  has  a  beneficial  interest,  to  which 
the  right  of  the  husband  would  attachJ 

It  is  also  mentioned  as  an  exception  to  the  disability  of  a  mar- 
ried woman  to  devise  property,  that  she  may  do  so  in  pursuance  of 
a  sufficient  ante  or  post  nuptial  contract ;  ^  this  is  clearly  the  result 
of  the  marriage  contract,  and  not  the  exercise  of  testamentary 
power  conferred  by  the  law. 

1  45  &  46  Vict.  c.  75,  §  1,  pi.  1,  §  2.  ®  Maas  v.  Sheffield,  1  Rob.  364, 10  Jur. 

2  Goods  of  Price,  L.*R.'l2  Prob.  D.  417;  Brook  v.  Turner,  2  Mod.  170,  172; 
137  ;  Goods  of  Homfray,  L.  R.  12  Prob.  Van  Winkle  v.  Schoonmaker,  15  N.  J. 
D   138  note.  E<1-  ^^^>  3«6  et  seq. 

3  Bransby  v.  Haines,  1  Cas.  Temp.  '  Scaramell  v.  Wilkinson,  2  East,  552, 
Lee,  120,  holding  that  the  will  of  a  mar-  S^^- 

ried  woman,  made  witliout  the  husband's  '  Scammell  v.  Wilkmson,  supra. 

consent,  is  a  mere  nullity ;  but  the  spirit-  ^  1  Redf  on  Wills,  24,  citmg  Rich  v. 

ual  courts  have  jurisdiction  to  decide  the  Cockell,   9   Ves.    368,   375;    Hodsden    v. 

question  whether  the  husband  consented  Lloyd,  2  Br.  C.  C.  534.     See  the  Chan- 

or  not.    Steadman  v.  Powell,  1  Add.  58 ;  cellor's   remarks,   p.   543 ;   the  will   was 

Tucker  v.  Inman,  4  M.  &  Gr.  1049,  1076.  made  before  marriage,  and  held  revoked 

*  So  held  per  North,  C.  J.,  in  Brook  by  the  marriage. 
V.  Turner,  1  Mod.  211. 


§  21  INCAPACITY    OF    MARRIED    WOMEN'.  27 

IJut  in  equity  the  power  of  nKirricd  women  to  dispose  of  their 
real  as  well  as  personal  property  is  fully  recoo-nized  ;  hence  all 
property  over  which  courts  of  chancery  obtain  iurisdic- 

'        '         "^  "'  '  •     1     Coverture  no 

tion  may  be  as  freely  and  fully  devised  be  a  married   disability  ia 
woman  as  by  a  feme  sole,  whether  the  legal  estate  is   "^"'  ^' 
vested  in  a  trustee  or  not,  since  the  husband  and  all  persons  on 
whom  the  le.2;al  estate  may  devolve  will  be  deemed  trustees  for 
the  persons  to  whom  the  wife  has  given  the  equitable  interest.^ 

In  America  there  is  a  tendency  to  depart  from  the  ancient 
doctrine  of  the  common  law  in  respect  of  the  property  rights  of 
married  women.  So  great  is  the  progress  already  T^g^j.^^^^^^^,  i,j 
made  in  this  direction,  that  it  seems  not  impossible   Americano 

„,:.,,  abolish  iiica- 

that  at  some  future  day  the  principles  of  the  civil  law   pacity  from 
will  have  entirely  supplanted  the  common  law  in  this 
respect,  and  when  no  distinction  will  be  recognized  between  the 
sexes,  and  between  married  and  unmarried  females,  in  respect  of 
their  right  to  acquire,  hold,  and  dispose  of  property .- 

In  respect  of  the  testamentary  power  of  married  women  they 
have  been  placed  upon  a  footing  of  substantial,  if  not  absolute, 
equality  with  unmarried  women  and  men  in  Arkansas,'^    g^^^^^  ^^^^ 
Connecticut,  Florida,^  Illinois,^  Indiana,  Iowa,  Louisiana,   ting  married 

'  '  '  '  '     women  upon 

Maine,^  Maryland,^ Michigan,^  Minnesota,^  Mississipj)!,^"   same  footing 

.,   ^  .  with  uiimar- 

Nebraska,!^  Nevada,^^  r^ew  York,^-^  Ohio,^*  feouth  Caro-   ried  women 
lina,^^  Texas,!^  Vermont,^"  and   Wisconsin  ^^ ;  in  some   ^^  ™^"* 
States  it  was  deemed  necessary  to  annex  a  limitation  with  refer- 

1  1  Jarm.  on  Wills,  *39-41.    See  the  8  Const.,  art.  xvi.  §  5. 
elaborate  statement  by  tlie  American  edi-  ^  St.  1878,  p.  567,  §  1. 

tor  of  the  conmion  law  doctrine  of  testa-         i"  Code,   1880,  §   1167,  abrogating   all 
mentary  incapacity  by  coverture,  p.  *41.      common    law    disabilities    of     married 

2  The     Married    Women's     Property     women,  §  1169. 

Act,  1882,  also   indicates   the   policy  of  "  Comp.  St.  1885,  ch.  23,  §  123. 

England  to  place  a  married  woman,  so  far  ^-  Gen.  St.  1885,  §  3001. 

as  her  separate  property  is  concerned,  in  ^^  "  Act  for  the  more  effectual  protec- 

the  position  of  a  feme  sole :  Butt,  J.,  in  tion  of  the  property  of  married  women," 

Goods  of  Price,  L.  R.  12  Prob.  D.  137, 138.  passed  April  11,  1849.     See  Van  Wert  v. 

3  Dig.  1884,  §  4621.  Benedict,  1  Bradf.  114.  116. 

*  Dig.  1881,  p.  757,  §  16.  14  Allen  v.  Little,  5  Oh.  66,  68  et  seq. 

°  St.  &  Curt.  St.  1885,  p.  1275,  par.  9.  is  Const.,  art.  xiv.  §  8. 

6  Rev.  St.  c.  61,  §  1.     See  Meserve  v.  16  Rev.  St.  1879.  §  48.57.     In  this  State 

Meserve,  63  Me.  518.  marriage  enables  an  infant  female,  other- 

'^  Code,  1878,  p.  421,  §  12.     This  stat-  wise  disqualified,  to  make  a  valid  will, 

ute  refers  to  ch   51,  §  20,  as  to  the  kind  i^  Rpy.  L.  1880,  §  2039. 

of  property  she  may  devise.     See  SchuU  i"  Rev.  St.    1878,  §  2342. 
V.  Murray,"  32  Md.  9,  15. 


28 


EXTERNAL    LIMITS    ON    TESTAMENTAUY   CAPACITY. 


S  22 


married  wo- 
men to  one 
half  their 
estate. 

States  allow 
ing  them  to 
dispose  of 
equitable 
estates. 


States  savins;  cnce  to  the  husband's  rights  (as  tenant  by  the  curtesy, 
'narit'if '^"'^  '^  etc.,  in  stHct  analogy  with  the  widow's  right  of  dower, 
'■'si't*^-  etc.),  as  in  Missouri,^  New  Hampshire,^  New  Jersey,^ 

hl'M^estanien-  Pennsylvania,^  Oregon,^  and  Rhode  Island^;  in  others, 
tary  power  of  ^q  limit  the  powcr  to  oHC  half  of  her  property,  without 
consent  of  the  husband  in  respect  of  the  other  half, 
as  in  Colorado,"  Kansas,^  and  Massachusetts.^  Power 
to  dispose  of  her  separate  property  by  will  is  given 
in  Alabama,^''  California,^^  Indiana,^^  Kentucky ,i^  Ten- 
nessee,^* and  Virginia,^^  by  which  it  would  seem  her 
common  law  status  is  slightly,  if  at  all,  changed.  In 
Georgia,  the  common  law  is  substantially  enacted  by  statute,^^ 
and  in  North  Carolina  the  common  law  prevails.^''  In  Dela- 
ware a  wife  may  will  her  property  with  the  consent  of  her  hus- 
band expressed  in  writing  and  attested  by  two  witnesses ;  but 
such  will  is  nevertheless  inoperative  against  the  husband's  right 
to  curtesy. ^^  In  Kentucky,  where  a  married  woman  cannot  make 
a  will,  it  was  held  that  a  holographic  will  executed  by  a  married 
woman,  and  after  her  husband's  death  recognized  and  adopted  by 
her  as  her  will,  is  valid.^^ 

§22.  Incapacity    of    Criminals. — Other    limitations   upon    the 
right  to  dispose  of  property  by  last  will  existed  at  common  law 


1  Eev.  St.  §  3961. 

2  Gen.  L.  1878,  p.  435,  §  11. 

3  Rev.  1877,  p.  638,  §  9.  See  Vreeland 
V.  Ryno,  26  N.  J.  Eq.  160 ;  Camrlen  Co. 
V.  Insham,  40  N.  J.  Eq.  3,  6. 

*  Dickinson  v.  Dickinson, 61  Pa,  St.  401. 
6  Code,  1887,  §  3068. 

6  Pub.  St.  1882,  pp.  423,  424,  471. 

7  Gen.  St.  1883,  p.  695,  §  2269. 

8  Comp.  L.,  ch.  117,  §  35.  See  Barry 
V.  Barry,  15  Kans.  587  ;  Bennett  v.  Hutch- 
inson, 11  Kans.  398,  408. 

9  In  personalty:  Pub.  St.  1882,  p.  819, 
§  6.  This  statute  also  secures  to  the  hus- 
band his  curtesy.  It  is  held  that  the 
husband  takes  no  interest  in  his  wife's 
realty  devised  to  others,  if  he  has  no 
curtesy.    Burke  v.  Colbert,  144  Mass.  160. 

1"  Code.  §  2352.  See  Mosser  v.  Mosser, 
32  Ala.  551,  555 ;  O'Donnell  v.  Rodiger, 
76  Ala.  222. 

11  Civ.  Code,  §  1273. 

12  Formerly  :  Noble  v.  Enos,  19  Ind.  72. 
But  see  Rev.' St.  1881,  §2557. 


1"  Gen.  St.  1883,  p.  832,  §  4.  See 
George  v.  Bussing,  15  B.  Mon.  558,  562. 

!■•  Johnson  v.  Sharp,  4  Coldw.  45. 

15  Code,  1887,  §  2286,  2513. 

18  Code,  1882,  §  2410,  giving  the  reasons 
for  tlie  common  law  rule,  and  all  excep- 
tions. But  it  is  there  held  that  a  married 
woman  may  will  her  property  (the  lan- 
guage of  the  judge  is  "  all  they  own," 
which  seems  to  include  real  and  personal 
property,  whether  legal  or  equitable) 
without  her  husband's  consent.  Urquliart 
V.  Oliver,  56  Ga.  344,  346. 

1^  A  married  woman  may  dispose  by 
will  of  her  equitable  property :  Leigh  v. 
Smith,  3  Ired.  Y.q.  442,  445;  and  such 
will  must  be  admitted  to  probate  in  the 
probate  court :  Whitfield  v.  Hurst,  3 
Ired.  Eq.  242,  244. 

18  Rev.  Code,  1874,  p.  479,  §  5,  but 
consent  is  no  longer  required:  L.  1876, 
ch.  165,  §  5. 

19  Porter  v.  Ford,  82  Ky.  191. 


§  22  INCAPACITY   OF    CRIMINALS.  29 

or  under  ancient  English  statutes.     Traitors  and  felons    j,,^,^     ;, 
were  formerly  incompetent  to  devise  their  lands,  be-   fi'.m  ciini- 
cause  they  were  by  the  attainder  ipno  jacto  vested  m 
the  crown. ^     This  rule  included  a  felo  de  se  ^  as  to  his  personal 
property,  but  he  was  capable  of  devisin^^  his  realty  because  there 
was  no  attaindcr.3     'phis  subject  is  of  little  importance  now,  even 
in  England,  attainder  having  been  abolished  by  statute,*  and  has 
not  been  known  in  the  United  States  since  the  adoption  of  the 
Federal  Constitution. 

1  1  Jarm.  on  Wills,  *48  et  se<j.  ceased  was  forfeit  to  thd  crown  :   Goods 

2  But  only  as  to  tlie  forfeiture  ;  it  was     of  Bailey,  2  Sw.  &  Tr.  156,  159. 

held  tliat  tlie  executor  of  the  will  of  a  *  Norris  v.  Chambres,  29  Beav.  246, 

person  found  /do  de  se  by  the  verdict  of  258. 

a  coroner's  inquest  is  entitled  to  probate,  *  33  &  34  Vict.  c.  23. 

although  the  personal  property  of  the  de- 


INCAPACITY   ARISING  FROM  MENTAL  DISABILITIES.      §  23 


CHAPTER  IV. 

INCAPACITY    ARISING    FROM    MENTAL   DISABILITIES. 

§  23.    Degree   of  Mental   Vigor   requisite   to   make   a  Will.  —  The 

most   important   ground    of   testamentary   incapacity,   fertile   in 

,         ,   abundant   crops  of   litigation,  is  that  of   mental  defi- 

Sounduess  of       ,  ^  o  ' 

mind  necc's-     cicncv,  arising  either  from  idiocy,  lunacy,  or  any  other 

sai-v  to  tes-  *''  °  tt  <>,i  •     -i     • 

tanientary  permanent  or  temporary  disorder  oi  the  mmd,  incon- 
capaci  y.  gjgtent  with  the  exercise  of  free  will ;  or  from  such 
weakness  of  the  mind  as  unfits  it  to  resist  undue  influences,  so 
that  the  testator's  dispositions  cannot  be  said  to  be  his  own  spon- 
taneous acts,  but  are  ratlier  the  results  of  importunities,  devices, 
fraudulent  representations,  or  even  of  threats  and  force  brought 
to  bear  upon  him  by  designing  persons. 

This  subject  has  been  much  enlarged  upon  by  able  and  ingenious 
writers  of  the  legal  as  well  as  medical  profession,  who  have  treas- 
ured up  a  vast  amount  of  learning  in  their  voluminous  books. 
Referring  to  them  for  the  details  and  subtle  distinctions  drawn 
between  the  several  forms  of  incapacity  which  are  held  to  invali- 
date wills,  it  is  nevertheless  necessary  to  examine  the  principal 
grounds  constituting  such  incapacity,  in  order  to  point  out  the 
principles  upon  which,  under  our  system  of  laws,  property  passes 
by  will. 

It  is  conceded  on  all  hands,  that  no  rule  can  be  laid  down  to 

indicate  the  precise  degree  of  intelligence,  or  mental  power,  which 

is  necessary  to  constitute  testamentary  capacity.     The 

Sufficient  to  •'  '     •  n    \ 

transact  ordi-  ncarcst  approach  thereto  is  the  requirement  of  the  same 

narv  business.  .,,>,,  .  p        j  i        . 

capacity  for  testamentary  purposes  as  for  the  transac- 
tion of  the  ordinary  business  of  life.  If  the  party  is  capable  of 
acting  rationally  in  buying  and  selling  property,  settling  accounts, 
collecting  and  paying  out  money,  or  borrowing  or  loaning  money, 
he  is  capable  of  making  a  valid  will.^  But  even  this  rule,  vague 
as  it  is,  is  not  universal ;  for  it  has  been  held,  as  will  appear  from 

1  Meeker  v.  Meeker,  75  111.  2fi0,  260  ;     Illinois  cases  ;  "Wilson  v.  Mitchell,  101  Pa. 
and  see  Bice  v.  Hall,  120  111.  597,  601 ;     St.  495,  502. 
Brown  v.  Riggin,  94  111.  560,  citing  other 


§  23  MENTAL    VIGOR    REQUISITE    TO    MAKE   A    WILL,  31 

the  furtlicr  considcnifiou  of  tliis  subject,^  that  a  man  may  bo  inca- 
pable of  managing  his  affairs,  or  to  make  a  contract,  and  yet  com- 
petent to  make  a  valid  will ;  and,  on  the  other  hand,  a  person 
may  be  compos  mentis  in  the  ordinary  broad  nsc  of  this  term,  and 
yet  be  incompetent  to  make  a  will.'f  Business  capacity  is  not, 
therefore,  an  absolutely  reliable  standard  of  testamentary  ca- 
pacity.^ A  safer  rule  is  now  laid  down  in  a  number  of  States^ 
viz.:  "While /the  law  does  not  undertake  to  measure  a  person's 
intellect,  and  define  the  exact  quantity  of  mind  and  memory 
which  a  testator  shall  possess  to  authorize  him  to  make  a  valid 
will,  yet  it  does  require  him  to  possess  mind  to  know  the  extent 
and  value  of  his  property,  the  number  and  names  of  the  persons 
who  are  the  natural  objects  of  his  bounty,  their  deserts  with  ref- 
erence to  their  conduct  and  treatment  toward  him,  their  capacity 
and  necessity,  and  that  he  shall  have  sufficient  active  memory  to 
retain  all  these  facts  in  his  mind  long  enough  to  have  his  will 
prepared  and  executed  ;  if  he  has  sufficient  mind  and  memory  to 
do  this,  the  law  holds  that  he  has  testamentary  capacity ;  and 
even  if  this  amount  of  mental  capacity  is  somewhat  obscured  or 
clouded,  still  the  will  may  be  sustained."^*  And  it  ^he^ 
should  be  remembered,  that  the  decisive  question  al-  ^"^J'j^gl^'jfg 
wavs  is  whether  the   instrument   propounded   is   the   actoftes- 

"  n         J        T  •!  j_  tator. 

spontaneous  act  of  a  person  understanding  its  nature 

and  consequences  ;  and  that  this  is,  ultimately,  a  question  of  fact 

to  be  determined  by  the  jury^ 

1  Post,  %  29.  fia-  552,  571.     Also  cases  cited  by  Cal- 

2  This  broad  assertion  by  tlie  reporter  vin,  Surrogate,  in  Townsend  v.  Bogart, 
in  Ills  syllabus  to  Townsend  v.  Bogart,  supra :  Van  Guysling  v.  Van  Kuren,  35 
infra,  is,  however,  hardly  justified  by  the  N.  Y.  70;  Barnhart  v.  Smith,  86  N.  C. 
language  of  the  Surrogate,  either  in  this  47.3,  483.  To  similar  effect :  Elliott  v. 
case  (p.  105)  or  in  the  case  of  Maijs  ?•.  Welby,  13  Mo.  App.  19,  24;  Benoist  y. 
Freeman,  8  Hcdf.  181,  209  et  seq.,  to  which  Miirrin,  58  Mo.  307,  322  ;  affirmed.  Jack- 
reference  is  made.  In  Maryland  the  stat-  son  r.  Hardin,  83  Mo.  175,  180  ;  Delafield 
ute  provides  tiiat  to  make  a  valid  will  the  v.  Parish,  25  N.  Y.  9,  29.  citing  numerous 
testator  must  be  capable  of  executing  cases  ;  O'Donnell  v.  Rodiger,  70  Ala.  222, 
a  valid  deed  or  contract:  Davis  i'.  Cal-  228.  See  Rice  »'.  Rice,  53  Mich.  432,  437  ; 
vert,  5  G.  &  J.  269  ;  Stewart  v.  Elliott,  2  Ballantine  v.  Proudfoot,  62  Wis.  210  ; 
Mackey,  307,  318.  Will  of  Earnsw()rth,C>2  Wis.  474 ;  Delaney 

a  Townsend  v.  Bogart,  5  Redf.  9.3, 104 ;  v.  Salina,  31  Kans.  532  ;   Sherley  v.  Sher- 

Kramer  v.  Weinert,  81  Ala.  414,  416,  cit-  ley,  81  Ky.  240,  249;  Cline  v.  Lindsey, 

ing  Stubbs  v.  Houston,  33  Ala.  55.5.  110  Ind.  337,  347  ;  Shaver  v.  McCarthy, 

*  Bundy  v.  McKnight,  48  Ind.  502,  in-  110  Pa.  St.  339;  Stoutenburg  i-.  Hopkins, 

struction  to  the  jury,  p.  511,  approved,  12  Atl.  R.  689  (N.  J.) ;  Epling  v.  Hutton, 

p.  514.     See  cases  there  cited  :  Moore  v.  121  111.  555. 

Moore,  2  Bradf.  261 ;  Morris  v.  Stokes,  21  -  See  the  case  of  Potts  v.  House,  0  Ga. 


32         INCAPACITY   ARISING   FROM   MENTAL   DISABILITIES.      §  25 

§  24.  Incapacity  of  Idiots.  —  An  idiot  is  Said  to  be  a  person 
wholly  destitute  of  the  reasoning  faculty,  unable  to  compare  two 
ideas  together,^  and  utterly  incapacitated  for  the  trans- 
depnvat*imf  action  of  auv  busincss.2  Early  writers  laid  down  very 
of  reasoning  ^arrow  tcsts  of  idiocy,  such  as  inability  to  count  twenty 
pence,  to  tell  father  or  mother,  or  how  old  he  is;^ 
Blackstone  lays  down  the  same  rule  nearly  two  centuries  after- 
ward,'* and  Lord  Hardwicke  said  that  the  term  non  compos  mentis 
imports  not  weakness  of  understanding,  but  a  total  deprivation  of 
reason.^  In  later  years  courts  of  equity,  both  in  England  and 
America,  have  taken  jurisdiction  of  persons  who  had  become 
from  any  cause  so  weak  and  incapacitated  in  mind  as  to  be 
unable  to  manage  their  affairs,  and  placed  them  under  guardian- 
ship ;  ^  but  in  respect  of  the  testatory  power  it  seems  that,  while 
the  will  of  a  person  proved  an  idiot  is  of  course  void,''  mere 
weakness  of  mind,  imbecility,  whimsicality,  or  eccentricity  is  not 
sufficient,  in  the  absence  of  other  proof  of  incapacity,  to  invalidate 
a  will.^ 

§  25.  Incapacity  of  Lunatics.  —  Unless,  therefore,  a  person  is 
proved  to  have  been  an  idiot  or  natural  fool,  some  other  evidence 

324,  .350  et  seq.;  Stewart  v.  Lispenard,  26  and  understand  his  letters,  and  read  by 

Wend.  255,  296  et.  seq. ;  Comstock  v.  Had-  teaoliing  or  information  of  another  man, 

lyme,  8  Conn.  254,  264 ;  Cordrey  v.  Cor-  then  it  seemeth  he  is  not  a  fool  or  a  nat- 

drey,  1  Houst.  269,  273;  Trish  v.  Newell,  ural  idiot."     Comment  ascribed  to  Lord 

62  111.  196,  203 ;  Brooke  v.  Townshend,  7  Hale,  in  Fitzherbert's  Naturae  Brevium, 

Gill,  10,  32 ;  Stevens  v.  Vancleve,  4  Wash.  233. 

C.  C.  262,269;  Boyd  y.  Eby,  8  Watts,  66,  *  "A  man  is  not  an  idiot  if  he  hath 

70 ;  Gardiner  v.  Gardiner,  34  N.  Y.  155,  any  glimmering  of  reason,  so  that  he  can 

157.     It  is  error  to  take  from  the  jury  tell  his  parents,  his  age,  or  the  like  com- 

the  question  of  undue  influence,  or  to  tell  mon  matters."    1  Bla.  Comm.  304. 
them  that  in  case  of  doubt  they  must  find  ^  Ex  parte  Barnsley,  3  Atk.  168,  173. 

for  the  will  :    Mulier  r.  St.  Louis  Hospi-  «  Gibson   v.   Jeyes,  6   Ves.  266,  272; 

tal,  73  Mo.  242,  afiirming  5  Mo.  App.  390.  Ridgway  v.  Darwin,   8  Ves.   65;   In  re 

But  where  the  testimony  is  such  that  the  Barker,  2  Johns.  Ch.  233. 
court  in  the  exercise  of  a  sound  legal  dis-  '^  1  Jarm.   on  Wills,  *34;  Whart.  & 

cretion  would  not  sustain  the  verdict,  the  Stille,  Med.  Jur.  §  20. 
court  should  refuse    to   direct  an  issue:  ^  Tiie  cases  so  holding  are  very  numer- 

Eddey's  Appeal,  109  Pa.  St.  406 ;  Herster  ous.    See  Stewart  v.  Lispenard,  26  Wend. 

V.  Herster,  116  Pa.  St.  612.  255,  particularly  the  Surrogate's  opinion, 

1  See  Dr.  Ray,  Med.  Jur,  Insan.  §  60,  p.  263 ;  the  Chancellor's  opinion,  p.  290 ; 

5th  ed.  and  the  opinions  of  Senators  Verplanck, 

^  Bannatyne  v.  Bannatyne,  14  Eng.  L.  p.  296,  and  Scott,  p.  314 ;  Lee  v.  Lee, 

&  Eq.  581,  590.  4  McCord,  183 ;  Delafield  v.   Parish,   25 

3  "  So  as  it  may  appear  that  he  hath  N.  Y.  9,  102;  Kinne  v.  Kinne,  9  Conn, 

no  understanding  or  reason  what  shall  be  102,   105;  Harrison  v.   Rowan,  3  Wash, 

for  his  profit,  or  what  for  his  loss:  but  if  C.  C.    580,   586;  Hall   v.   Dougherty,   5 

he  hatli  such  understanding,  that  he  know  Houst.  435,  449. 


§  25  INCAPACITY   OF   LUNATICS.  33 

of  incapacitv  must  exist,  in  addition  to  imbecility  or   , 

.  •  Limacj'  or 

weakness  of  the  mind,  to  invalidate  liis  will.  Persons  periodical 
non  compos  mentis, —  or  of  unsound  mind,  which  terms 
are  now  generally  conceded  to  mean  the  same  thing,^  —  may 
be  lunatics,  distinguishable  from  idiots  chiefly  by  the  periodicity 
or  partial  nature  of  the  disorder  of  their  mind,  while  idiots  are 
uniformly  and  wholly  deprived  of  reason ;  and  from  imbeciles, 
who  may  or  may  not  possess  sufficient  vigor  of  mind  to  dispose 
of  their  property,  according  to  the  circumstances  by  which  they 
are  surrounded,  while  lunatics  who  are  not  imbeciles,  but  affected 
with  delusions,  may  have  ample  mental  force,  but  exercise  it  in  an 
abnormal  or  perverted  manner.  The  importance  of  the  distinction 
lies  in  the  difference  of  the  treatment  of  the  issue  of  devisavit 
vel  no7i,  and  of  the  evidence  under  it,  necessary  to  meet  the  case 
arising  on  the  one  or  other  ground.  For  if  it  be  proved  that  the 
testator  was  an  idiot,  this  will  invalidate  the  will.  If  it  be  shown 
that  he  was  of  weak  mind,  the  question  will  be  whether  there  was 
undue  influence.  If  his  mind  was  affected  by  delusions,  the  va- 
lidity of  the  will  must  depend  upon  the  further  question  whether 
it  is  affected  by,  or  its  provisions  are  the  consequence  of,  an 
insane  delusion.^ 

The  term  lunacy  originated  in  the  hypothesis  formerly  enter- 
tained concerning  periodical  insanity,  that  the  persons  affected 
were  under  the  influence  of  the  moon  ;  it  is  now  used  Now  applied 
in  the  law  to  denote  insanity  or  derangement  of  the  mentoTmmd 
mind  generally.^  It  is  said  to  be  a  disease  of  the  brain,  generally. 
a  mental  disorder,  by  which  the  freedom  of  the  will  is  impaired. 
The  legal  test  of  insanity  is  delusion.  "  Insane  delusion  consists 
in  a  belief  of  facts  which  no  rational  person  would  believe";* 
taking  things  for  realities  which  exist  only  in  the  imagination,^ 
and  which  are  impossible  in  the  nature  of  things  ;  ^  "  mingling 

1  1  Kedf.  on  Wills,  *59,  pi.  1  ;  lb.  61,     ness,  Derangement,   Alienation,  Aberra- 
pl.  5  ;  Buswell  on  Insanity,  §  18  tion.  Mania,  Delirium,  Frenzy,  Monoroa- 

2  See  Bigelow's  note  (1),  1  Jarm.  on     nia.  Dementia,  as  synonyms. 

Wills,  *38,  in  which  he  calls  attention  to  *  Forman's   Will,   54  Barb.  274,   289, 

the  necessity  of  this  distinction,  and  col-  quoting  from  Dew  v.  Clark,  3  Addams's 

lects  numerous    English    and    American  Eccl.  R.  70. 

authorities  on  the  subject  under  consid-  ^  Waring    v.  Waring,    6    Thornton's 

eration.  Notes,  388 ;  Morse  v.  Scott,  4  Dem.  507, 

^  Per  Patton,  Pr.,  in  McEIroy's  Case,  508. 

6  W.  &  S.  451,  453.     Webster  mentions,  6  Ray's  Med.  Jur.  §  169.     "  It  is  of  the 

under  the  word  "  Insaniiy,"  Lunacy,  Mad-  essence  of  an  insane  delusion,  that,  as  it 
VOL.  I.  —  3 


34        INCAPACITY   ARISING    FROM   MENTAL   DISABILITIES.        §  25 


ideas  of  imagination  with  those  of  sensation,  and  mistaking  one 
for  the  other."  ^ 

Partial  insanity,  where  a  person  has  insane  delusions  as  to  one 
or  more  subjects,  and  not  as  to  others,  does  not  destroy  testamen- 
Partiai  tary  capacity,  unless  the  insane  delusion  concerns  the 

insanity.  subject  of  the  testamentary  disposition.^  But  however 
unimpaired  the  memory  may  be,  aud  although  there  may  be  rea- 
soning power,  if  there  be  insane  delusion  concerning  the  property 
which  one  seeks  to  dispose  of,  he  cannot  make  a  valid  will.^ 

Neither  superstition  or  ignorance,  however  gross,*  nor  error  in 
fact,^  nor  prejudice,^  nor  unfounded  suspicion,"  amounts  to  an 
insane   delusion.     Nor  does  moral  insanity,  unaccom- 


What  are  not  .,    ,        .  i    i       •  •   •  -n    i 

insane  panicd  by  msane  delusion,  vitiate  a  will,  however  un- 

just, unnatural,  or   perverse  the  content,  or  immoral 


delusions. 


has  no  basis  in  reason,  so  it  cannot  by 
reason  be  dispersed  "  :  Merrill  v.  Rolston, 
5  Redf.  220,  '251. 

1  Duffield  V.  Morris,  2  Harr.  (Del.)  375, 
380.  See  Wiiart.  &  Stille's  Med.  Jurispr. 
(4th  ed.)  §  19  et  seq.,  §  305  et  seq. 

2  Forman's  Will,  54  Barb.  274,  289 
et  seq.,  citing  (p.  289)  Dew  v.  Clark,  3 
Addams's  Eccl.  R.  79  ;  Frere  v.  Peacocke, 
1  Rob.  Eccl.  R.  442,  445  ;  FuUeck  v. 
Allinson,  3  Hagg.  527  ;  Seaman's  Friend 
Soc.  V.  Hopper,  33  N.  Y.  619 ;  Stanton  v. 
Wetherwax,  16  Barb.  259.  See  also  Cot- 
ton V.  Ulmer,  45  Ala.  378,  395 ;  Board- 
man  V.  Woodman,  47  N  H.  120;  Gardner 
V.  Lamback,  47  Ga.  133,  192 ;  HoUinger 
V.  Syms,  37  N.  J.  Eq.  221,  236  et  seq.  ; 
Benoist  v.  Murrin,  58  Mo.  307,  323  ;  Rice 
V.  Rice,  53  Mich.  432,434  ;  Brace  v.  Black, 
17  No.  E.  R.  66  (111.).  It  was  held  in 
Lonisiana,  that  where  a  person  himself, 
unaided  by  others,  makes  a  sage  and  ju- 
dicious will  containing  nothing  "  sound- 
ing in  folly,"  it  will  be  presumed,  in  the 
case  of  a  person  habitually  insane,  that  it 
was  made  during  a  lucid  interval,  throw- 
ing the  burden  of  proof  upon  those  at- 
tacking it :  Kingsbury  v.  Whittaker,  32 
La.  An.  1055,  1061  et  seq.  See  Vance  v. 
Upson,  66  Tex.  476,  488. 

3  Brinton's  Estate,  13  Phila.  234  ;  Taw- 
ney  v.  Long,  76  Pa.  St.  106,  111,  116; 
Ballantine  v.  Prnudfoot,  62  Wis.  216. 

*  Florey  v.  Florey,  24  Ala.  241,  249  et 
seq. ;  Leech  v.  Leech,  1  Phila.  244,  247  ; 


Addington  v.  Wilson,  5  Ind.  137,  139; 
Gass  V.  Gass,  3  Humph.  278,  282;  Chafin 
Will  Case,  32  Wis.  557,  564.  See  Denson 
V.  Beazley,  34  Tex.  191,  198,  and  dissent- 
ing opinion,  206  et  seq. ;  Otto  v.  Doty,  61 
Iowa,  23;  Storey's  Will,  20  111.  App.  183, 
194 ;  Will  of  Smith,  52  Wis.  543,  547  et 
seq. ;  and  Brown  v.  Ward,  53  Md.376  ;  all 
holding  that  a  belief  in  spiritualism  is  not 
of  itself  a  certain  test  of  insanity.  La 
Bau  r.  Vanderbilt,  3  Redf.  384,  388,  hold- 
ing that  a  belief  in  clairvoyance  does  not 
invalidate  a  will,  unless  it  be  shown  that 
it  was  the  offspring  of  such  belief.  To 
similar  effect,  Schildknecht  v.  Rompf,  4 
Southw.  R.  (Ky.)  235. 

5  Hall  V.  Hall,  38  Ala.  131.  134 ;  Clapp 
V.  FuUerton,  34  N.  Y.  190;  Hite  v.  Sims, 
94  Ind.  333.  But  see  Ballantine  v.  Proud- 
foot,  62  Wis.  217,  where  the  erroneous 
impression  of  the  testatrix  as  to  the  con- 
duct of  her  daughter  was  held  an  insane 
delusion  avoiding  the  will;  and  see  also 
Re  Dorman,  5  Dem.  112. 

6  Den  V.  Gibbons,  22  N.  J.  L.  117,  155; 
.Tenckes  v.  Smithfieid,  2  R.  I.  255,  263 ; 
Phillips  V.  Chater,  1  Dem.  533;  Carter  v. 
Dixon,  69  Ga.  82  •,  Salisbury  v.  Aldrich, 
118  111.  199,  203;  Chancy  v.  Bryan,  16 
Lea,  63,  68 ;  Schneider  v.  Manning,  121 
111.  376. 

■7  Seaman's  Friend  Society  v.  Hopper 
(Hopper  Will  Case),  33  N.  Y  619,  624; 
Stackhotise  v.  Norton,  15  N.  J  Eq.  202, 
228;  Cole's  Will,  49  Wis.  179,  181. 


§  26      PRESUMPTION    OF   SANITY,    AND    LUCID    INTERVALS. 


35 


the  motive  may  be ;  ^  but  gucli  facts  may  be  shown  toL^ethcr  with 
other  evidence  on  the  (juestion  of  unsoundness  of  mind.^ 

§  26.    Presumption   of  Sanity,  and   Lucid  Intervals.  —  As  partial 
insanity,  or  tiie  existence  of  delusion  on  one  or  more  subjects 
(monomania),  is   not   sufiicient  to   invalidate    a   will   Burden  of 
unl(>ss  the  delusion  be  upon  the  subject  affected  by  the   I'^^'^f^^'l 
testatorv  act,^  so,  too,  the  will  of  an  insane  person  may   aiwaVs  on 

'  II-  proponent. 

be  valid,  if  it  be  shown  that  it  was  executed  durmg  a 
lucid  interval.     The  importance,  in  a  legal  sense,  of  the  subject 
of  lucid  intervals  in  a  mind  affected  by  insanity,  is  due,  like  that 
of  the  distinction  between  idiocy  and  lunacy,  to  the  nature  of  the 
evidence  necessary  to  establish  the  will  of  a  person  proved  to  have 
been  insane.     For,  the  burden  of  proving  the  validity  of  a  will 
resting  necessarily  upon  him  who  propounds  it  for  probate,  it  is 
obvious  that  he  must  show,  among  other  things,  the  sanity  of  the 
testator,  without  which  his  proof  must  fail,  and  the  instrument 
propounded  cannot  receive  probate.'*     But  since  experience  has 
shown  that  sanity  or  soundness  is  the  general  condi-   Butmaycon- 
tion  of  the  human  mind,  the  law  permits  the  proponent    pres[",i*ption 
of  the  instrument  to  rely  on  the  presumption  of  sanity   °^  ^''""'y- 
arising  out  of   this  experience,  instead  of   requiring  affirmative 
or  actual  proof  thereof.     If,  therefore,  a  will  is  produced,  and  its 
due  execution  proved,  this,  in  the  absence  of  further  proof,  is 
sufficient   to  establish  the   will.^      This   presumption,   Thisp-e- 
however,  may  be   met   by  evidence  of  the  testator's   maTtTre- 
incompetcncy,  which   may  or  may  not   convince   the   butted, 
jury  ;  if  it  fail  to  disturb  their  confidence  in  his  competency,  the 
presumption  will  still  prevail,  although  no  evidence  of  sanity  be 

1  If  the  disposition  is  not  against  the  -  Bitner  v.  Bitner,  65  Pa.  St.  347,  362 ; 

policy   of  the   law.     See   Dew  r.   Clark,  Mayo  i'.  Jones,  s?//)m;  Leech  i;.  Leech,  1 

supra;  Boardnian  v.  Woodman,  47  N   II.  Philn.  244;  Woodbury  v.  Obear,  7  Gray, 

120,  136;  Frere  r.  Peacocke,  .sK/^ra  ;  Nic'h-  4(57,  470;  Hubbard  i'.   Hubbard,  7  Oreg. 

olas  V.  Kershner,  20  W.  Va.  251 ;  Mayo  42,  46;  Lamb  v.  Lamb,  105  Ind.  456,  462; 

V.  Jones,  78  N.  C.  402,  406;  Carpenter"  r.  Sherley  v.  Slierley,  81  Ky.  240. 

Calvert,  83  III.  62,  70  ;  Hiirsins  v-  Carlton,  »  Ante,  §  25. 

28  Md.  115 ;  Lewis's  Case,  38  N.  J.  Eq.  219,  *  Wms.  Ex.  [21]. 

226,  holding  that  a  man  may  be  a  thief,  a  ^  At  least  in  contentious  proceedings, 

miser,  unclean,  profane,  and  of  ungovertia-  Tiie  statutory  requirements  in  the  several 

ble  temper,  and  yet  liave  testamentary  ca-  States,  and  the  rules  of  proceeding  in  the 

pacity;   Will    of   Blakely,    48   Wis.    294.  probate  of  a  will  in  common  form,  or  in 

And  a  gift  to  one  with  whom  the  testator  a  non-contentious  or  ex  parte  proceeding, 

lived  in  adultery  or  concubinage  is  not  for  may  raise  a  different  rule.     See  on  tliis 

that  reason  void  :  see  post,  §  31,  p.  48,  n.  5.  subject  post,  §§  216,  220. 


86 


INCAPACITY    ARISING   FROM   MENTAL   DISABILITIES.      §  26 


And  then  it  oifered.  But  if  the  evidence  be  such  as  to  show  the 
tbat^wnrwrs"  existence  of  insanity  in  the  testator  generally,  so  that 
aTudd"""^'  in  the  absence  of  further  proof  the  presumption  of 
interval.  Sanity  would  be  rebutted,  it  may  still  be  shown,  in  sup- 
port of  the  will,  that  it  was  made  during  a  lucid  interval.^ 

The  applicability  of  the  presumption  of  sanity,  and  its  extent  in 
support  of  a  last  will,  has  given  rise  to  voluminous  discussions  in 
text-books  and  in  the  courts  of  the  several  American  States.  The 
prevailing  doctrine  (in  the  absence  of  statutory  pro- 
visions to  the  contrary)  is  in  accordance  with  the 
English  view,  as  above  stated.^  It  is  so  held  in  Ala- 
""■  bama,'^   Arkansas,*    California,^   Delaware,^  Indiana," 

lowa,^  Kansas,^  Kentucky ,i*^  Maryland,^i  Massachusetts,^^  Missis- 


states  in  which 

the  presump- 
tion of  sanity 
mav  be  relied 


1  Cartwri<iht  v.  Cartwriglit,  1  Phillim. 
90,  100,  in  wliich  Sir  Wm.  Wynne  states 
the  law  as  follows  :  "  If  you  can  establish 
that  the  party  afflicted  habitually  by  a 
malady  of  the  mind  has  intermissions, 
and  if  there  was  an  intermission  of  the 
disorder  at  the  time  of  the  act,  that  being 
proved  is  sufficient,  and  the  general  ha- 
bitual insanity  will  not  affect  it ;  but  the 
effect  of  it  is  this,  it  inverts  the  order  of 
proof  and  of  presumption;  for  until  proof 
of  an  habitual  insanity  is  made,  the  pre- 
sumption is  that  the  party  agent,  like  all 
human  creatures,  was  rational ;  but  where 
an  habitual  insanity,  in  the  mind  of  tlie 
person  who  does  the  act,  is  established, 
there  the  party  who  would  take  advan- 
tage of  an  interval  of  reason  must  prove 
it."  See  Wms.  Ex.  [20]  et  seq.,  and 
numerous  English  cases  cited  there.  1 
Jarm.  on  Wills,  *37. 

2  Wms.  Ex.  [20]  et  seq.  See  preceding 
note. 

3  Stubbs  V.  Houston,  33  Ala.  555,  563, 
in  effect  overruling  Dunlap  v.  Robinson, 
28  Ala.  100;  Cotton  v.  Ulmer,  45  Ala. 
378,  396 ;  O'Donnell  v.  Rodiger,  76  Ala. 
222,  227. 

■1  McDaniel  v.  Crosby,  19  Ark.  533, 
545,  on  the  authority  of  and  approving 
Rogers  v.  Diamond,  13  Ark.  474,  and 
several  English  cases  so  holding;  Mc- 
Cullogh  V.  Campbell,  49  Ark.  367. 

5  Panaud  v.  Jones,  1  Cal.  488  (per 
Bennet,  J.,  p.  498). 

^  Chandler  v.  Ferris,  1  Harr.  454,  461  ; 
Jamisoa  v.  Jamison,  3  Houst.   108,  124. 


The  syllabus  omits  to  mention  this  point ; 
the  charge  to  the  jury  contains  these 
words :  "  The  presumption  of  law  is  in 
favor  of  his  capacity ;  the  burden  of 
showing  want  of  capacity  rests  on  those 
who  oppose  the  will ;  and  it  is  incum- 
bent on  them  to  show  such  incapacity  by 
satisfactory  proof."    (p.  124.) 

7  Turner  v.  Cook,  36  Ind.  129,  137.  In 
this  case  the  statute  is  referred  to  as  re- 
quiring proof,  in  probate  in  the  common 
form,  of  execution,  competence,  and  free- 
dom from  restraint ;  but  throws  the  onus 
to  prove  unsoundness  of  mind  on  the 
party  alleging  it. 

8  Webber  v.  Sullivan,  58  Iowa,  260, 
266. 

9  Rich  V.  Bowker,  25  Kans.  7,  12. 

10  Milton  V.  Hunter,  13  Bush,  163,  170, 
distinguishing  between  the  practice  in 
probate  courts,  where  the  statute  requires 
the  witnesses  to  be  interrogated  concern- 
ing the  testator's  sanity,  and  the  contest 
of  a  will  in  chancery  or  on  appeal ;  af- 
firmed in  Flood  v.  Pragoff,  79  Ky.  607, 
612. 

11  Taylor  v.  Cresswell,  45  Md.  422, 430. 
"  In  this  State  the  presumption  of  law  is 
in  favor  of  sanity,  and  the  burthen  of 
proof  is  upon  the  party  impeaching  a  will 
for  want  of  testamentary  capacity." 

1-  It  was  held  in  this  State,  in  the  case 
of  Crowninshield  v.  Crowninshield,  that 
the  burden  of  proof  of  the  testator's  san- 
ity did  not  shift  from  the  proponent  even 
upon  proof  of  sanity  by  the  subscribing 
witnesses,  and  that  the  presumption  of 


§  26      PRESUMPTION    OF   SANITY,    AND    LUCID    INTERVALS.  37 


sippi/  New  Hampshire,^  New  Jersey,^  New  York,*  North  Caro- 
lina,^ Oregon,^  Pennsylvania,^  Tennessee,^  and  apparently  in 
Wisconsin.^  The  States  in  which  the  presumption  states  in  which 
is  held  inapplicable  or  insufficient,  and  that  afhrma-  Hl.Vi's^'not''^" 
tive  evidence  of  the  testator's  sanity  is  necessary  to  suthcient. 
esta])lish  the  will,  are  Connecticut,^'^  Georgia,"  Illinois,^^  Maine,^-^ 
Michigan,"  Missouri,i^  Texas,^*^  Yermont,^^  and  West  Yirginia.^^ 


sanity  was  rendered  inapplicable  by  tlie 
statute  :  2  Gray,  524,  532  et  seq.  But  ia 
tlie  later  case  of  Kaxtei  v.  Abbott,  7 
Gray,  71,  83,  a  majority  of  the  court 
(Tliomas,  J.,  dissenting)  held  that  the 
legal  presumption,  in  the  absence  of  evi- 
dence to  the  contrary,  was  in  favor  of 
sanity. 

1  Payne  v.  Banks,  32  Miss.  292,  296. 

2  Pettes  V.  Bingham,  10  N.  H.  514, 
615,  affirmed  in  Perkins  v.  Perkins,  39 
N.  H.  163,  167. 

3  Wiiitenack  v.  Stryker,  2  N.  J.  Eq.  8, 
11,  affirming  the  rule  as  stated  in  the 
text,  and  repeated  in  Turner  i-.  Cheesiiian, 
15  N.  J.  Eq.  243,  245,  and  Boylan  v. 
Meeker,  28  N.  J.  L.  274,  280;  and  in  Den 
V.  Gibbons,  22  N.  J.  L.  117,  the  court  ap- 
prove an  instruction  to  the  jury,  that  the 
existence  of  doubt  should  be  decisive 
against  the  conclusion  of  insanity,  p.  141. 

*  Ean  I'.  Snyder,  46  Barb.  230,  232; 
Gombault  v.  Public  Administrator,  4 
Bradf.  226,  244;  Brown  v.  Torrey,  24 
Barb.  583,  586. 

5  Mayo  V.  Jones,  78  N.  C.  402,  403 
et  seq.,  distinguishing  between  tiie  probate 
in  common  form  and  tlie  trial  of  an  issue 
between  parties,  p.  405. 

e  Clark  v.  Ellis,  9  Greg.  128, 142  et  seq. 

t  Grubbs  v.  McDonald,  91  Pa.  St.  236, 
241,  citing  Landis  v.  Landis,  1  Grant,  248. 

"  Puryear  v.  Reese,  6  Coldw.  21,  25; 
Bartee  v.  Thompson,  8  Baxt.  508,  512. 

9  In  Lewis's  Will,  the  judge  having 
found  the  testator  to  be  competent  by 
preponderance  of  evidence,  adds :  "  The 
presumption  is  that  he  continued  compe- 
tent to  do  so  until  the  will  was  executed ; 
.  .  .  we  think  tiie  contestant  has  failed  to 
overtlirow  that  presumption " :  51  Wis. 
101,  112;  Cole's  Will,  49  Wis.  179.  182; 
Lyon,  J.,  in  Silverthorn's  Will,  68  Wis. 
372,  379,  states  that  in  his  opinion  tiie 
statute  requires  affirmative  proof  to  be 
made  of    the  mental   soundness  of    the 


testator  before  the  will  can  be  admitted 
to  probate  ;  but  sliglit  evidence  is  suffi- 
cient to  put  tlie  contestant  to  his  proofs 
upon  that  question  :  Allen  v.  Griffin,  69 
Wis.  529,  537. 

1"  Knox's  Appeal,  26  Conn.  20,  22,  af- 
firming Comstock  V.  Hadlyme,  8  Conn. 
254,  and  relying  for  authority  on  Maine 
and  Massachusetts  cases.  (But  in  Massa- 
chusetts the  law  is  otherwise  :  see  Ba.x- 
ter  V.  Abbott,  suprn.) 

11  Evans  v.  Arnold,  52  Ga.  169,  179 
et  seq.  This  case  does  not  entirely  reject 
the  presumption  of  sanity,  but  requires 
some  affirmative  proof  It  is  affirmed  in 
Wetter  v.  Haversham,  60  Ga.  193,  194, 
and  relies  for  authority  on  Maine,  Con- 
necticut, and  Micliigan  cases. 

1-2  Carpenter  v.  Calvert,  83  111.  62,  71, 
holding  affirmative  proof  of  sanity  to  be 
required  by  the  terms  of  the  statute  in 
the  first  instance. 

13  Robinson  v.  Adams,  62  Me.  .369; 
Cilley  V.  Cilley,  34  Me.  162;  Barnes  v. 
Barnes,  66  Me.  286 ;  Gerrish  v.  Nason,  22 
Me.  438,  441. 

1*  McGinnis  v.  Kempsey,  27  Mich.  363, 
373. 

1^  As  intimated  by  Napton,  J.,  in  Har- 
ris r.  Hays,  53  Mo.  90,  96.  See  also 
Miiller  v.  St.  Louis  Hospital,  5  Mo.  App. 
390,  in  which  an  instruction  to  the  jury 
was  refused,  that  ujion  equiponderance 
of  evidence  the  verdict  should  be  in  favor 
of  the  will.  This  case  was  approved  in 
73  Mo.  242,  and  later  cases  turning  on 
this  point  are  not  inconsistent  therewith  : 
Jackson  v.  Hardin,  83  Mo.  175,  182;  El- 
liott V.  Wclby,  13  Mo.  App.  19,  28. 

i«  Beazley  v.  Denson,  40  Tex.  416,  424. 

1^  Williams  r.  Robinson,  42  Vt.  658, 
664,  overruling  dicta  to  the  contrary  in 
Robinson  v.  Hutchinson,  26  Vt.  38,  and 
Dean  v.  Dean,  27  Vt.  746. 

i'^  McMechen  i-.  McMechen,  17  W.  Va. 
683,  700. 


38  INCAPACITY   ARISING    FROM    MENTAL   DISABILITIES.       §  27 

In  Ohio  the  statute  requires  proof  to  be  made  in  common  form, 
and  makes  such  probate  prima  facie  valid  ;  hence  the  presumption 
of  sanity  is  immaterial.^  But  even  in  some  of  these  States  the 
presumption  of  sanity,  although  it  may  not  be  sufficient  when 
entirely  unsupported  by  affirmative  testimony,  may  be  relied  on 
in  aid  of  such  affirmative  testimony,  and  will  have  its  effect  in 
cases  where  the  testimony  is  doubtful  or  contradictory .^ 

§  27.  Presumption  of  Insanity.  —  When  such  evidence  has  been 
produced  as  will  satisfy  the  jury  of  the  testator's  insanity  before 
Insanity  or  recently  after  the  execution  of  the  will,  it  is  of 

must  bJproof  coursc  indispcnsablc  to  the  validity  of  the  will  that 
of  lucid  interval  {^^  j^g  sliowu  to  havc  bccu  cxecutcd  during:  a  lucid  in- 

or  cessation  of  ^ 

insanity.  tcrval,  or  upon  cessation,  whether  temporary  or  per- 

manent, of  the  malady.^  If  the  proof  of  insanity  consist  in  the 
decree  or  judgment  of  a  competent  court  declaring  the  testator  to 
be  non  coinpos  mentis,  and  placing  him  under  guardianship,  the 
presumption  is,  and  continues  until  there  be  a  decree  or  judgment 
by  a  competent  court  declaring  his  restoration,  that  he  is  incom- 
petent to  make  a  valid  will ;  *  but  this  presumption  may  be 
rebutted  by  proof  showing  his  sanity  at  the  time  of  executing  the 
w^ill,  although  the  guardianship  be  unrepealed,^  or  the  Chancellor 
may,  if  he  is  satisfied  that  such  party  is  competent  to  dispose  of 
his  estate  by  will,  with  sense  and  judgment,  suspend  proceedings 

1  Hears  v.  Hears,  15  Ohio  St.  90,  101.  Hamilton  v.  Hamilton,  10  R.  I.  538,  542 ; 

2  See  Evans  v.  Arnold,  supra;  Carpen-  Harden  v.  Hays,  9  Pa.  St.  151,  161  ;  Pan- 
ter  V.  Calvert,  supra;  Trish  v.  Newell,  62  coast  v.  Graham,  15  N.  J.  Eq.  294,  308. 
111.  196.  In  Illinois  it  is  held  that  the  record  of  a 

3  Ante,  §  26,  p.  36,  n.  1.  The  possibility  court  showing  the  appointment  of  a  con- 
oflucid  intervals  is  in  modern  times  denied  servator  to  a  person  adjudged  to  be  in- 
by  some  eminent  alienists.  But  whether  competent  to  manage  his  affairs,  is  not 
the  term  "  lucid  interval  "  is  accurately  competent  evidence  to  show  the  insanitj' 
or  improperly  used,  in  the  scientific  sense,  of  such  person  at  the  time  of  making  a 
is  unimportant  for  legal  purposes.  The  will,  subsequent  to  the  adjudication  :  Pit- 
law  recognizes  certain  conditions  of  in-  tard  v.  Foster,  12  111.  App.  132,  139.  In 
sane  persons  as  enabling  them  to  act  in-  Hichigan  such  order  may  be  put  in  evi- 
telligently  and  exercise  free  will ;  which  dence  as  bearing  on  the  testator's  condi- 
is  not  denied  by  psj'chological  physi-  tion,  but  is  not  prima  facie  evidence  of 
cians,  but  accounted  for  by  them  as  a  testamentary  incapacity  :  Rice  v.  Rice, 
temporary  mask  of  the  delirium,  or  one  50  Hich.  448:  and  so  in  Wisconsin: 
of  the  phases  of  the  disease  conditioned  Slinger  v.  Calverly,  37  N.  W.  Rep.  236, 
by  the  periodicity  of  its  nature,  —  a  fleet-  238. 

ing  remission  of   the   symptoms   rather  ^  Stone  v.  Damon   12  Hass.  487,  488 ; 

than  a  change  of  the  pathological  con-  Wliitenack  v.  Stryker,  2  N.  J.  Eq.  8,  28  ; 

dition.     See  Whart.  &  Stille,  Hed.  Jurisp.  Estate    of    Johnson,    57    Cal.    529,    531  ; 

§§  61  pt  seq.,  744  et  seq.  Brady  v.  McBride,  39  N.  J.  Eq.  495. 
*  White  V.  Palmer,  4  Mass.  147,  149 ; 


§27 


PRESUMPTION    OF    INSANITY. 


39 


against  him,  so  as  to  enable  him  to  make  a  will.'  A  siniilur  pre- 
sumption arises,  as  above  stated,  when  a  condition  of  insanity  or 
derangement  of  the  mind  has  been  proved  by  witnesses  ;  -  where- 
by the  onus  to  prove  sanity  at  the  time  of  the  execution  of  the 
will  is  thrown  upon  the  proponent.^     But  this  pre- 

.  ,  ,  Accidental  or 

sumption   does    not  exist  where   the    malady   under  temporary 
which  the  testator  labored  was  in  its  nature  either  presum'ed  to 
accidental  or  temporary  ;  *   nor   is   it   raised  by  the  ^"""""^' 
suicide  of  the  testator  soon  after  making  his  will.^     Delirium, 
being  the  direct  result  of  a  bodily  disease,  generally  abates  with 
the  fever  producing  it,  and  wholly  ceases  with  resto- 
ration to  health ;  hence  no  presumption  of  permanent 
insanity  arises  from  mere    delirium.^     Intoxication  or  drunken- 
ness, if  it  exist  to  the  extent  of  producing  mental  oblivion,  or  to 
disorder  the  faculties  and  pervert  the  judgment,  de- 
prives a  person  of  the  testamentary  capacity  while  it 
continues  ;  '^  but  as  it  ceases  with  the  cause,  it  is  no  indication  of 
subsequent  disability,^  unless  it  become  habitual,  and  continue  so 


nor  delirium. 


Drunkenness. 


1  In  the  Matter  of  Burr,  2  Barb.  Cli. 
208,  210. 

2  Clark  V.  Fisher,  1  Pai.  171,  174  (but 
see  Clarke  v.  Sawyer,  infra,  3  Saiidf.  Ch. 
351);  Morrison  y.' Smith,  ;3  Bradf.  209, 
223  ;  Rush  v.  Megee,  36  Ind.  69,  85 ;  God- 
den  I'.  Burke,  35  La.  An.  160,  171; 
O'Donnell  v.  Rodiger,  76  Ala.  222. 

3  And  it  is  not  sufficient  to  prove  san- 
ity before  and  after  the  day  on  which  the 
will  was  made,  but  the  lucid  interval 
must  be  proved  at  the  very  time :  Har- 
den V.  Hays,  9  Pa.  St.  151,  162;  Aubert 
V.  Aubert,  6  La.  An.  104,  108  ;  Saxon  v. 
Whitaker,  30  Ala.  237. 

Complete  restoration  need  not,  how- 
ever, be  shown  in  proving  the  lucid  inter- 
val ;  it  is  sutticient  to  prove  a  restoration 
of  the  faculties  of  the  mind  sufficient  to 
enable  the  testator  soundly  to  judge  of 
the  act:  Boyd  v.  Eby,  8  Watts,  60,  70; 
see  Busw.  on  Insanity,  §  189,  and  Eng- 
lish cases  cited;  i.  a.  Creagh  i-.  Blood,  2 
Jones  &  LaT.  509,  516. 

*  Brooke  v.  Townshend,  7  Gill,  10,  31 ; 
Staples  V.  Wellington,  58  Me.  453,  459 
(stating  the  law  as  applied  to  contracts, 
applicable  a  fortiori  to  wills)  ;  McMasters 
V  Blair,  20  P'a.  St.  298,  302  ;  Snow  v.  Ren- 
ton,  28  III.  306,  308 ;  Rutherford  v.  Mor- 


ris, 77  111.  397,  409,  citing  Trish  v.  Newell, 
62  111.  196;  O'Donnell  o.  Rodiger,  76  Ala. 
222.  See  Blake  v.  Rourke,  38  N.  W. 
Rep.  (lo.)  392. 

a  Duffield  V.  Morris,  2  Harr.  375,  382  ; 
Brooks  V.  Barrett,  7  Pick.  94,  97;  McEl- 
wee  V.  Ferguson,  43  Md.  479,  484.  It  has 
been  held  that  suicide  is  evidence  tending 
to  show  insanity  :  Frary  v.  Gusha,  59  Vt. 
2.57,  264 ;  Godden  v.  Burke,  35  La.  An. 
160,  171. 

6  1  Redf.  on  Wills,  92 ;  Busw.  on  In- 
sanity, §  191 ;  Clarke  v.  Sawyer,  3 
Sandf.  Ch.  351,  410  (a  case  of  apoplexy 
causing  paralysis ;  see  Clark  v.  Fisher, 
supra,  1  Pai.  171) ;  Brown  v.  Riggin,  94 
111.  560,  569  (a  case  of  epileptic  attacks, 
attended  with  convulsions,  fever,  and  de- 
lirium). 

7  1  Redf.  on  Wills,  160,  and  author- 
ities there  cited  ;  1  Jarm.  on  Wills,  *34, 
note  1,  and  authorities.  Intoxication 
at  the  time  of  making  the  will  does  not 
of  itself  avoid  it,  if  it  does  not  prevent 
him  from  knowing  what  he  is  about  : 
Pierce  v.  Pierce,  38  Mich.  412,  417  ;  Key 
i;.  HoUoway,  7  Baxter,  575   585. 

8  Wheeler  v.  Alderson,  3  Hagg.  574, 
602;  Ayrey  v.  Hill,  2  Add.  206.  210; 
Gardner  v.  Gardner,  22  Wend.  526,  533 


40  INCAPACITY   ARISING   FROM  MENTAL   DISABILITIES.      §  28 

long  as  to  produce  actual  insanity.^  By  itself  it  does  not,  as  a 
rule  of  law,  raise  the  presumption  of  incapacity .^  ^ 

§  28.    Competency  of  "Witnesses  on   Questions   of  Sanity.  —  "  The 

proof  of  a  lucid  interval  is  a  matter  of  extreme  dilticulty,"  says 

Williams,^  "  for  this,  among  other  reasons,  that   the 

Difficulty  of  '  PI-,  11  1 

proof  of  lucid  patient  is  not  unirequently  rational,  to  all  outward 
appearances,  without  any  real  abatement  of  his  malady. 
On  the  other  hand,  if  the  deceased  was  subject  to  attacks  pro- 
ducing temporary  incapacity,  and  was  at  other  times  in  full  pos- 
session of  his  mental  powers,  such  attacks  may  naturally  create 
in  those  who  only  happen  to  see  him  when  subject  to  them  a 
strong  opinion  of  his  permanent  incapacity.  These  considera- 
tions, while  they  tend  to  reconcile  the  apparent  contradictions  of 
witnesses,  render  it  necessary  for  the  court  to  rely  but  little  upon 
mere  opinion,  to  look  at  the  grounds  npon  which  opinions  are 
formed,  and  to  be  guided  in  its  own  judgment  by  facts  proved, 
and  by  acts  done,  rather  than  by  the  judgments  of  others."  * 

But  there  is  a  difficulty  attaching  to  the  subject  of 

Necessity  of  ^      r.    .  .        .        -,  ^  p  ,i         t    i-       ,- 

testimony  of  the  proof  of  iiisanity  itseli,  apart  from  the  distinction 
non-exper  s.  j^g^^^^gj^  general  sanity  and  lucid  intervals,  which  in 
the  nature  of  things  compels  resort  to  the  opinions  of  witnesses, 
although  they  may  not  be  professionals  or  experts.^  The  opinion 
of  non-professional  witnesses  as  to  the  sanity  or  insanity  of  the  tes- 
tator is  generally  permitted  to  be  given,  although  the  authorities 

et  seq.;  Peck  v.   Gary,  27  N.  Y.  9,  17;  ^  Wms.  Ex.  [22],  citing  Sir  John  NichoU 

Julke  V.  Adam,  1  Redf.  454,  457 ;  Pierce  in  White  v.  Driver,  1  Phillim.  84,  88  ;  eit- 

u.  Pierce,   38  Mich.  412,  418;  Turner  v.  ing  also  Bragden  v.  Brown,  2  Add.  441, 

Cheesman,  15  N.  J.  Eq.  243,  246  ;  Tlionip-  445  ;  Ayrey  v.  Hill,  2  Add.  206,  210 ;  and 

son  V.  Kyner,  65  Pa.  St.  368,  378 ;  Estate  other  English  authorities, 
of  Johnson,  57  Cal.  529;  Lang's  Estate,  *  Kinleside  v.  Harrison,  2  Phillim.  449, 

65  Cal.  19.  459,  and  other  English  authorities. 

1  Duffield  V.  Morris,  supra,  in  which  ^  «  They  are  competent  because,  con- 
Harrington,  J.,  said:  "It  is  not  improb-  sidered  in  connection  with  the  means  of 
able  that  drunkenness  long  continued  or  observation  on  which  they  are  based, 
much  indulged  in  may  produce  on  some  they  are  the  best  evidence  of  which  the 
minds  and  with  some  temperaments  per-  case  in  its  nature  is  susceptible.  From 
manent  derangement,  fixed  insanity."  the  nature  of  the  subject,  it  cannot  gen- 
Gardner  V.  Gardner,  supra  ;  McSorley  v.  erally  be  so  described  by  witnesses  as  to 
McSorley,  2  Bradf.  188,  198;  Cochrane's  enable  others  to  form  an  accurate  judg- 
Will   1  T.  B.  Mon.  263.  ment  in  regard  to  it "  :  Doe,  J.,  dissent- 

2  Gardner  i-.  Gardner.  22  Wend  526;  ing,  in  Boardman  v.  Woodman,  47  N.  H. 
Lewis  V.  Jones,  50  Barb.  645;  Ex  parte  120,  144  ;  Cline  v.  Lindsey,  110  Ind.  337, 
Patterson,  4  How.  Pr.  34  ;  Lecrkey  v.  Cun-  341 ;  1  Redf.  on  Wills,  139,  pi.  4  ;  and  see 
ningham,  56  Pa.  St.  370  ;  McPhersou's  p.  140  et  seq. ;  also  p.  137,  pi.  3 ;  Whart. 
Appeal,  11  Atl.  R.  205  (Pa  ).  &  St.  Med.  Jurisp.  §§  257  et  seq. 


§28 


WITNESSES   ON    QUESTION'S   OF   SANITY. 


41 


arc  by  no  means  uiianiniouH  on  tliis  subject.^  In  some 
States  this  is  confined  to  the  sul)scribing  witnesses ;2  but 
in  by  far  the  greater  number,  courts  permit  non-experts, 
whether  subscribing  witnesses  or  not,  to  give  their  opin- 
ion of  the  testator's  sanity,  on  condition  of  stating  also 
upon  which  it  is  based.  So  in  Ahibama,^  Arkansas,* 
Connecticut,-^  Delaware,^  Georgia,'  Illinois,^  Indiana,^ 
lowa,!^  Kentucky ,^1  Maryland,^^  Michigan,^^  Minnesota,^** 
Missouri,!^  New  Hampshire,^*^  New  Jersey ,i"  New  York,^*^ 


Testimony  of 
subscribing 
witnesses 
always  ad- 
mitted. 

the  facts 

Non-experts 
must  state 
facts  upon 
whiiii  tliuir 
opinion  is 
grounded. 


1  1  Redf.  on  Wills,  140  et  seq.  It  is 
noticeable,  however,  that  tlie  doctrine  ac- 
cording to  wiiich  the  testimony  of  non- 
professional witnesses  is  admissible  is 
gaining  ground.     See  authorities,  infra. 

2  Ware  v.  Ware,  8  Me.  42,  54  et  seq. ; 
Poole  V.  Richardson,  3  Mass.  330 ;  Need- 
ham  V.  Ide,  5  Pick.  510,  512.  In  the 
case  of  Baxter  v.  Abbott,  7  Gray,  71, 
Judge  Thomas  regrets  the  rule  but  sus- 
tains it :  "  If  it  were  a  new  question,  I 
should  be  disposed  to  allow  every  witness 
to  give  l>is  opinion,  subject  to  cross-exam- 
ination upon  the  reasons  upon  which  it  is 
based,  his  degree  of  intelligence,  and  his 
means  of  observation.  It  is  at  least  un- 
wise to  increase  the  existing  restrictions." 
(p.  79.)  And  see  the  cases  of  Barker  v. 
Comins,  110  Mass.  477,  and  Nash  v.  Hunt, 
116  Mass.  237,  in  wliich  the  testimony  of 
non-experts  is  considered  in  a  more  favor- 
able light,  and  May  v.  Bradlee,  127  Mass. 
414,  422,  in  wliich  a  witness,  not  an  ex- 
pert, but  guardian  of  the  testator,  was 
allowed  to  answer  the  question  whether 
he  had  observed  any  fact  which  led  him 
to  infer  that  there  was  any  derangement 
of  intellect. 

3  In  re  Carmichael,  3G  Ala.  514,  522, 
citing  numerous  earlier  Alabama  cases. 

*  Abraham  v.  Wilkins,  17  Ark.  292, 
322. 

5  Dunham's  Appeal,  27  Conn.  192.  In 
this  State  a  witness  so  giving  his  opinion 
cannot  be  compelled  to  give  his  opinion 
on  a  hypotiietical  case  to  test  the  value 
of  ills  opinion  (p.  200). 

6  Duffield  V.  Morris,  2  Harr.  375,  .385. 

7  Walker  v.  Walker,  14  Ga.  242,  251, 
relying  on  Potts  v.  House,  6  Ga.  324. 

*  American  Bible  Society  r.  Price,  115 
111.  623,  642 ;  Roe  v.  Taylor,  45  111.  486, 


disclaiming  a  contrary  view  ascribed  to 
Van  Horn  v.  Keenan,  28  111.  415,  449. 

9  Leach  v.  Prebster,  39  Iiul.  492,  494 ; 
State  V.  Newlin,  69  Ind.  108,  112;  Cline 
V.  Lindsey,  110  Ind.  337,  341. 

1"  Pelamourges  v.  Clark,  9  Iowa,  1,  12; 
Severin  i'.  Zack,  55  Iowa,  28,  31  ;  Par- 
sons I'.  Parsons,  66  Iowa,  754,  759  ;  Nor- 
man's Will,  72  Iowa,  84  ;  Meeker  v. 
Meeker.  37  N.  W.  773. 

11   Hunt  V.  Hunt,  3  B.  Mon.  575,  577. 

i''^  Weems  i'.  Weems,  19  Md.  334,  345. 

13  Beaubien  v.  Cicotte,  12  Mich.  459, 
495  et  seq.;  Rice  v.  Rice,  50  Mich.  448; 
3  Am.  Prob.  R.  128. 

"  Pinney's  Will,  27  Minn.  280,  281. 

1^  Moore  v.  Moore,  67  Mo.  192,  195,  re- 
lying on  Baldwine  v.  The  State,  12  Mo. 
223,  and  Crowe  o.  Peters,  63  Mo.  429, 434. 

w  Hardy  v.  Merrill,  56  N.  H.  227,  re- 
viewing the  history  of  the  contrary  doc- 
trine and  overruling  Hamblett  u.  Hamb- 
lett,  6  N.  H.  333,  340  ;  Boardman  v. 
Woodman,  47  N.  H.  120,  135. 

1"  Turner  v.  Cheesman,  15  N.  J.  Eq. 
243.  But  the  New  Jersey  cases  (Sloan  v. 
Maxwell,  3  N.  J.  Eq.  563,  Whitenack  v. 
Stryker,  2  N.  J.  Eq.  8,  Lowe  v.  William- 
son, 2  N.  J.  Eq.  82,  (Jarrison  v.  Garrison, 
15N.J.  Eq.  266)  all  give  very  little  weight 
to  such  opinions  :  the  court  draws  its  own 
conclusions  and  forms  its  own  judgment 
from  the  premises  which  have  produced 
the  conviction  in  the  mind  of  the  wit- 
ness. 

18  Culver  V.  Haslam,  7  Barb.  314,  af- 
firmed in  DeWitt  v.  Barley,  13  Barb.  550. 
551  ;  but  witnesses  who  did  not  subscribe 
the  will  are  confined  to  their  conclusions 
from  the  facts  to  which  they  testify  ; 
attesting  witnesses  may  give  their  opin- 
ion  generally  :    Clapp    v.   FuUerton,   34 


42  INCAPACITY   ARISING    FROM   MENTAL   DISABILITIES.      §  29 


North  Carolina,!  Ohio,^  Peiinsylvania,^  Tennessee,*  Texas,^  Ver- 
mont,^ and  Virginia."  In  California^  the  question  is  left  open; 
and   in  South    Carolina  the   intimation    is    that    only 


But  not  sub-  .  .     .        Q       CI    I 

scribing  wit-  subscribing  witnesses  can  give  their  opinion.^  hub- 
scribing  witnesses  are  not  generally  required  to  state 
the  facts  upon  which  they  base  their  opinion  ;!°  but  their  tes- 
timony is  not  conclusiveji!  although  it  is  entitled  to  the  greatest 
regard. ^2 

§  29.  Incapacity  from  Imbecility.  —  Mere  imbecility  or  weakness 
of  mind,  whether  natural  or  brought  on  by  old  age,  epilepsy  or  simi- 
lar diseases,  habitual  drunkenness,  or  any  other  cause,  does  not,  as 
has  already  appeared,i^  deprive  a  person  of  testamentary  capacity. i* 


N.  Y  190,  194  et  seq. ;  In  tbe  Matter  of 
Ross,  87  N.  Y.  514,  520,  citing  Hewlett  v. 
Wood,  55  N  Y.  634. 

1  Clary  /;.  Clary,  2  Ired.  L.  78,  80. 

2  Clark  V.  State,  12  Ohio,  483,  492. 
But  see  Runyan  v.  Price,  15  Ohio  St.  1, 14, 
ill  which  the  court  held  that  a  witness 
could  not  be  allowed  to  state  his  opinion 
as  to  the  sanity  or  insanity  of  a  testator, 
or  his  capacity  to  make  a  will,  at  the  time 
he  was  called  upon  to  witness  the  will,  for 
two  reasons:  one  of  which  was  stated 
to  be  that  the  inquiry  involved  a  ques- 
tion of  law  and  fact,  and  the  very  ques- 
tion to  be  decided  by  the  jury,  and  as- 
sumed that  the  witness  knew  the  dejfree 
of  capacity  which  the  law  required  for 
the  performance  of  the  act  of  executing 
a  will. 

3  Shaver  v.  McCarthy,  110  Pa.  St. 
339,  346  ;  Titlow  r.  Titlow,  54  Pa.  St.  216, 
223 ;  Bricker  v.  Lightner,  40  Fa.  St.  199, 
205;  Pidcock  v.  Potter,  68  Pa.  St.  342, 
351. 

*  Gibson  v.  Gibson,  9  Yerg.  329,  hold- 
ing that  the  opinions  of  non-experts  (not 
subscribing  witnesses),  considered  merely 
as  opinions,  are  not  evidence,  but  may  be 
given  after  stating  the  appearance,  con- 
duct, or  conversation  of  testator,  or  other 
fact  from  which  his  mind  may  be  in- 
ferred (p.  332) ;  Puryear  I'.  Reese,  6  Coldw. 
21,  26. 

s  Denson  v.  Beazley,  34  Tex.  191, 
212. 

6  Cram  v.  Cram,  33  Vt.  15,  18  et 
seq.  See  also  Fairchild  v.  Bascom,  35  Vt. 
398. 


7  Burton  v.  Scott,  3  Rand.  .399,  403  et 
seq. ;  Young  v.  Barner,  27  Gratt.  96,  103 
et  seq, 

8  Estate  of  Toomes,  54  Cal.  509,  512. 
But  the  judge  rendering  the  opinion 
strongly  intimates  that  such  testimony 
should  be  admitted  (p.  513)  ;  and  in  the 
Estate  of  Brooks,  54  Cal.  471,  474,  it 
seems  to  have  been  admitted  without 
objection. 

9  Jeter  r.  Tucker,  1  S.  C.  245,  254. 

w  Titlow  V.  Titlow,  54  Pa.  St.  216,  223 ; 
Gibson  v.  Gibson,  9  Yerg.  329,  3-32  ;  Van 
Huss  V.  Rainbolt,  2  Coldw.  139 ;  Williams 
V.  Lee,  47  Md.  321,  325. 

11  McTaggart  v.  Thompson,  14  Pa.  St. 
149,  155,  citing  Irish  v.  Smith,  8  Scrg. 
&  R.  573,  5»1,  and  Rambler  v.  Tryon,  7 
Serg.  &  R.  90,  93 ;  Storey's  Will,  20  111. 
App.  188,  186,  195. 

1-  Harrison  v.  Rowan,  3  Wash.  C.  C. 
580,  586;  Stevens  v.  Vancleve,  4  Wash. 
C.  C  262,268;  Turner  y.  Cheesman,  15 
N.  J.  Eq.  243  ;  Shaver  v.  McCarthy,  110 
Pa.  St.  339,  347. 

13  Ante,  §  25. 

11  "  For  courts  cannot  measure  the  size 
of  people's  understandings  and  capacities, 
nor  examine  into  the  wisdom  or  prudence 
of  men  in  disposing  of  their  estates  " : 
Wms.  Ex.  [40],  citing  Osmond  ;-.  Fitzroy, 
3  P.  Wms.  129.  See  also  Reed's  Will,  2 
B  Mon.  79;  Bleecker  v.  Lynch,  1  Bradf. 
458, 470 ;  Elliott's  Will,  2  J.  J  Marsh.  340, 
342 ;  Dornick  v.  Reichenback,  10  Serg.  & 
R.  84,  90;  Blanchard  r.  Nestle,  3  Denio, 
37,  40;  Crolius  v.  Stark,  64  Barb.  112, 
117  ;  Thompson  v.  Kyner,  65  Pa.  St.  368, 


§29 


rNCAPACITi:    FliOM   IMBECILITY. 


43 


It  seems  that  extreme  old  ajL^c  in  a  testator  is  deemed  by  the  courts 
a  circumstance  callincr  for  their  vi<i;ihincc,i  but  by  itself   ^, , 
constitutes    no  testamentary  disciualification.^   Yet  im- 
becility, though  not  amounting  to  actual  insanity,  may  be  shown 
to  exist  to  an   extent  which  invalidates  the  will,^   as 

1  11  j^  m    •       1  •      T     .  1.1  Iinbpcilitv 

where  he  has  not  sutticient  mmd  to  comprehend  the  may  invaii- 
nature  and  eli'ect  of  the  act  he  was  performing,  or  the  *'*^  ^'  ' 
relation  he  held  to  the  various  individuals  who  might  naturally  be 
expected  to  become  objects  of  his  bounty,  or  to  be  capable  of 
making  a  rational  selection  among  them.*  Senile  dementia  may 
so  far  impair  the  mind  that  "a  man  in  his  old  age  becomes  a  very 
child  again  in  his  understanding,  and  so  forgetful  that  he  knows 
not  his  own  name  "  ;  such  a  person  has  obviously  no  more  testa- 
mentary capacity  "  than  a  natural  fool,  or  a  child,  or  a  lunatic."  ■'' 
It  must  be  remembered,  however,  that  a  lower  degree  of  intel- 
lectual vigor  is  necessary,  or  held  sufficient,  to  make  a  valid  will, 
than  is  required  to  sustain  a  contract.*^      Total  loss  of  memory,  or 


378;  Rutherford  v.  Morris,  77  111.  397, 
holding  tliat  even  softening  of  the  brain 
two  years  prior  to  the  making  of  the  vvill 
will  not  invalidate  it,  if  the  testator  at 
the  time  of  mnking  it  was  capable  of 
transacting  his  ordinary  business  affairs 
(p.  408  ft  sef/.);  Wintermute  v.  Wilson,  28 
N.  J.  Eq.  437  (affirming  Wintermute's 
Will,  27  N.  J.  Eq.  447)  ;  Chrisman  v. 
Ciirisman,  18  Pac.  K.  (Or.)  ti. 

1  Collins  V.  Townley,  21  N.  J.  Eq.  353, 
in  which  the  age  of  the  testatrix  (ninety- 
eight  years)  was  held  to  warrant  a  de- 
mand for  full  formal  proof  of  the  will; 
Weir  V.  Fitzgerald,  2  Bradf  42,  64  ;  Cuth- 
bertson's  Appeal,  97  Pa.  St.  163,  affirm- 
ing Boyd  V.  Boyd,  66  Pa.  St.  283  ;  Will 
of  Ames,  51  Iowa,  596,  604. 

'^  "  On  the  contrary,  it  calls  for  protec- 
tion and  aid  to  further  its  wishes,  when  a 
mind  capable  of  acting  rationally,  and  a 
memory  sufficient  in  essentials,  are  shown 
to  have  existed  "  :  Maverick  v.  Keynolds, 
2  Bradf.  360,  384.  See  also  Watson  v. 
Watson,  2  B.  Mon.  74 ;  Creeiy  v.  Os- 
trander,  3  Bradf.  107 ;  Reynolds  v.  Root, 
62  Barb.  250,  258  ;  Van  Alst  i-.  Hunter, 
5  Johns.  Ch.  148,  158;  Van  Huss  v. 
Rainbolt,  2  Coldw.  139,  142;  Thomas  v. 
Stump,  62  Mo.  275,  279  ;  Browne  v.  Mollis- 
ton,  3  Whart.  129,  137  ;  Sloan  v.  Maxwell, 


3  N.  J.  Eq.  503,  581  ;  Den  v.  Johnson,  5 
N.  J.  L.  454,  457  et  seq. ;  Humphrey's 
Will,  26  N.  J.  Eq.  513  ;  Sheldon  v.  Dow, 
1  Dem.  503;  Wilson  v.  Mitchell,  101  Pa. 
St.  495,  503;  Cornwell  v.  Riker,  2  Dem. 
354,  366  ;  Smith  v.  James,  34  N.  W.  R. 
(lo.)  309. 

3  McTaggart  v.  Thompson,  14  Pa.  St. 
149,  154;  Shropshire  v.  Reno,  5  J.  J. 
Marsh.  91,  92  ;  Den  v.  Vancleve,  5  N.  J. 
L.  589,  660  et  secj. ;  Holden  v.  Meadows, 
31  Wis.  284,  296;  Hyatt  v.  Lunnin,  1 
Dem.  14. 

*  Forman  v.  Swift,  7  Lans.  44.3,  446 ; 
Daniel  v.  Daniel,  39  Pa.  St.  191,  207  ; 
Bates  V.  Bates,  27  Iowa,  110.  116;  Bundy 
V.  McKnight,  48  Ind.  .502,  513  et  seq. 

6  I  Redf.  on  Wills,  98,  pi.  6.  quoting 
from  the  "  Orphan's  Legacy  "  by  Godol- 
pliin,  and  citing  Griffiths  r.  Robins,  3 
Madd.  191,  turning  on  a  deed  of  gift ; 
Mackenzie  v.  Handasyde,  2  Hagg.  Eccl. 
211,  218  ;  and  Potts  v'.  House,  6  Gii.  ?.2A. 

"  "  A  man  may  be  cajiable  of  making 
a  will  and  yet  incapable  of  making  a  con- 
tract, or  to  manage  his  estate  "  :  Harrison 
V.  Rowan,  3  Wash.  C.  C.  580,  586.  Gard- 
ner V.  Laniback,  47  Ga.  133,  192  ;  Turner 
r.  Cheesman,  15  N.  J.  Eq.  243,  256 ;  Kinne 
?'.  Kinne,  9  Conn.  102,  105;  Converses. 
Converse,  21  Vt.  168;  Ilovey  v.  Chase, 


44         INCAPACITY   ARISING   FROM   MENTAL  DISABILITIES.      §  30 


Loss  of 
memorv 


the  loss  of  memory  of  the  testator's  family  or  property, 
is  fatal  to  the  validity  of  the  will ;  ^  but  if  memory 
is  not  totally  lost,  the  fact  that  it  is  poor  or  impaired  does  not 
affect  the  testatory  capacity ,2  for  the  mind  may  be  sound,  al- 
though the  memory  be  impaired.^  It  has  been  held  that  want 
of  memory,  vacillation  of  purjiose,  credulity,  and  vagueness  of 
thought  may  all  exist  in  connection  with  testamentary  capacity  ;  * 
and  "  there  is  no  rule  of  law  which  presci"ibes  average  capacity 
for  a  testamentary  act."  ^ 

§  30.  Incapacity  in  Consequence  of  Force,  Fraud,  or  Intimida- 
tion. —  A  will  coerced  by  actual  force  emj^loyed  upon  the  testa- 
tor,^ or  by  threats  and  intimidations,"  or  obtained  in  consequence 


52  Me.  804,  314;  Brinkman  v.  Rue^rge- 
sick,  71  Mo.  553,  555;  Wise  v.  Foote,  81 
Ky.  10,  15;  Whitney  v.  Twombly,  136 
Mass.  145. 

In  the  case  of  Harvey  r.  Sullens,  46 
Mo.  147,  153,  an  instruction  to  tlie  jury, 
that  if  the  testatrix  at  the  time  of  execut- 
ing the  will  was  "  old  and  infirm  in  body 
and  feeble  and  childish  in  mind,  and  so 
incapable  of  transacting  her  ordinary  busi- 
ness, then  she  had  not  sufficient  capacity 
to  make  a  will,"  was  held  to  be  justified 
"  under  the  circumstances  here  presented," 
but  the  court  say  that  as  an  abstract  prop- 
osition of  law  it  would  not  be  quite  accu- 
rate. The  proposition  that,  "  if  one  be 
able  to  transact  the  ordinary  affairs  of  life, 
he  may,  of  course,  execute  a  valid  will," 
is  approved,  and  the  cases  of  Tomkins  v. 
Tomkins,  1  Bail.  92,  and  Coleman  v.  Rob- 
ertson, 17  Ala.  84,  cited  in  support  thereof 
(p.  154).  The  principle  announced  in  the 
syllabus  of  the  case  (p.  148),  that  persons 
incapable  of  transacting  ordinary  busi- 
ness are  incapable  of  making  a  will,  is 
not,  therefore,  an  accurate  statement  of 
the  principle  announced  by  the  court.  In 
Young  V.  Ridenbaugh,  67  Mo.  574,  586, 
the  testamentary  capacity  required  is 
stated  to  be  an  understanding  of  the  dis- 
position the  testator  wishes  to  make  of 
his  property,  and  whether  the  will  makes 
that  disposition. 

1  Yoe  V.  McCord,  74  III.  33,  39 ;  Turner 
V.  Cheesman,  15  N.  J.  Eq.  243,  256 ;  Con- 
verse V.  Converse,  21  Vt.  168,  in  which 
Judge  Redfield  says  tliat  the  testator 
"  must  undoubtedly  retain  sufficient  active 


memory  to  collect  in  his  mind,  without 
prompting,  particulars  or  elements  of  tlie 
business  to  be  transacted,  and  to  hold 
them  in  his  mind  a  sufficient  length  of 
time  to  perceive  at  least  their  obvious  re- 
lations to  each  other,  and  be  able  to  form 
some  rational  judgment  in  relation  to 
them  "  (p.  170) ;  Delafield  v.  Parish,  25 
N.  Y.  9,  29  ;  Aikin  v.  Weckerly,  19  Mich. 
482,  506 ;  Lamb  v.  Lamb,  105  Ind.  456, 
462. 

2  See  cases  supra,  note  1  ;  Eddy's 
Case,  32  N.  J.  Eq.  701  ;  Wilson  v.  Mitch- 
ell, 101  Pa.  St.  495,  505;  Montague  v. 
Allan,  78  Va.  592. 

's  Lowder  v.  Lowder,  58  Ind.  538,  542. 
"  If  the  testator  was  of  sound  mind,  but 
of  poor  or  impaired  memory,  he  was  of 
sound  mind  and  memory,  as  the  phrase  is 
known  in  tiie  law  "  :  Yoe  v.  McCord,  74 
III.  33,  39. 

*  Hopple's  Estate,  13  Phila.  259. 

^  Per  Cooley,  J.,  in  Hoban  v.  Piquette, 
52  Mich.  346,  361. 

^  Mountain  v.  Bennet,  1  Cox  Ch.  C. 
353,  355. 

^  "  Imaginary  terrors  may  have  been 
created  sufficient  to  deprive  him  of  free 
agency."  "  The  conduct  of  a  person  in 
vigorous  health  towards  one  feeble  in 
body,  even  though  not  unsound  of  mind, 
may  be  such  as  to  excite  terror  and  make 
him  execute  as  his  will  an  instrument 
which,  if  he  had  been  free  from  such  in- 
fluence, he  would  not  have  executed  " : 
Boyse  v.  Kossbnrough,  6  H.  L.  Cas.  2,  49. 
See  Will  of  Farnsworth,  itifra. 


30 


INCAPACITY    FROM   FORCE,    INTIMIDATION,    ETC. 


45 


of  fraud  jierpoti'atcd  ii))on  liim,^  is  sclf-ovidontly  void,  be-  Forcc,throats, 
cause  it  is  not  his  spontaneous  act  or  free  will.  For  the  "r  fraud  in "' 
same  reason,  the  law  does  not  recognize  that  as  a  valid  validate  wiii. 
testamentary  act  which  is  the  result  of  external  influ-  rndne  in- 
encc  broufjlit  to  bear  upon  the  testator  to  an  extent  A"®"^^- 
and  under  circumstances  which  overpower  his  free  will.^  Out  of 
this  principle  springs  a  prolific  source  of  litigation  between  heirs 
at  law  and  beneficiaries  of  testators  ;  and  no  subject  affords 
greater  scope  to  juries  for  the  indulgence  of  personal  opinions  and 
views  of  right  and  wrong,  because  no  general  rule  can  be  laid 
down  to  ascertain  the  extent  and  nature  of  the  influence  under 
which  a  testator  may  have  acted,  or,  where  this  is  ascertained,  to 
determine  whether  and  to  what  extent  such  influence  was  legiti- 
mate or  unlawful.-^ 

§  31.    Incapacity  arising  from   Undue    Influence.  —  Undue    influ- 
ence, to  vitiate  a  will,  must  be  such  as  caused  the  testator  to 


1  Davis  V.  Calvert.  5  Gill  &  J.  2fiP,  80?, ; 
Dietrick  v.  Dietrick,  5  Serg.  &  K.  207  (in- 
cluding' as  fraudulent  unfounded  imputa- 
tions against  those  entitled  to  the  testator's 
bounty);  Will  of  Farnswortli,  t)2  Wis. 
474  ;  but  the  mistake  of  the  testator  as  to 
a  fact,  unless  occasionetl  by  fraudulent  or 
deceptive  representations,  does  not  in- 
vaUdate  a  will :  Howell  v.  Troutman,  8 
Jones  L.  804,  307  ;  aliter,  if  the  benefi- 
ciary, possessinsf  the  confidence  of  the 
testatrix,  knowingly  permits  her  to  make 
a  will  under  a  false  impression  :  Green- 
wood r.  Cline,  7  Or.  17. 

2  Lord  Cranworth,  in  the  case  of 
Boyse  v.  'Rossborough,  supra,  points  out 
that  it  is  not  metaphysically  accurate  to 
predicate  want  of  will  of  a  person  acting 
under  coercion.  lie  illustrates  by  argu- 
ing tliat  it  is  the  will  of  the  traveller  to 
give  up  his  purse  when  threatened  with 
death  by  the  highwayman  in  case  of  re- 
fusal, and  that  it  is  the  will  of  the  owner 
to  give  up  his  horse  to  the  thief  who 
steals  it  under  the  fraudulent  pretence  of 
borrowing  it,  and  adds  :  "  But  the  law 
deals  with  the  case  as  if  they  had  been 
obtained  against  my  will,  my  will  having 
been  the  result  in  one  case  of  fear,  and  in 
the  other  of  fraud.  Tlie  same  principle 
must  guide  us  in  determining  whether  an 
instrument  duly  executed  in  point  of  form 
is  or  is  not  a  will.     The  inquiries  must  be 


.  .  .  was  the  instrument  in  question  the 
expression  of  his  genuine  will,  or  was  it 
the  expression  of  a  will  created  in  his 
mind  by  coercion  or  fraud  ? "  6  H.  L. 
Cas.  44,  45. 

^  "  To  make  a  good  will,  a  man  must 
be  a  free  agent.  But  all  influences  are 
not  unlawful.  Persuasion  —  appeals  to 
the  afTections,  or  ties  of  kindred  —  to  a 
sentiment  of  gratitude  for  past  services, 
or  pity  for  future  destitution,  or  the  like 
—  these  are  all  legitimate  and  may  be 
fairly  pressed  on  a  testator.  On  the 
other  hand,  pressure  of  whatever  charac- 
ter, whether  acting  on  the  fears  or  hopes, 
if  so  exerted  as  to  overpower  volition 
without  convincing  the  judgment,  is  a 
species  of  restraint  under  which  no  valid 
will  can  be  made.  Importunity  or  threats 
such  as  the  testator  has  not  the  courage 
to  resist  —  moral  command  asserted  and 
yielded  to  for  the  sake  of  peace  and  quiet, 
or  of  escaping  from  distress  of  mind  or 
social  discomfort  —  these,  if  carried  to  a 
degree  in  which  the  free  play  of  the  tes- 
tator's judgment,  discretion,  or  wish  is 
overborne,  will  constitute  undue  influ- 
ence, though  no  force  is  either  used  or 
threatened.  In  a  word,  a  testator  may  be 
led,  but  not  driven  ;  and  his  will  must  be 
the  offspring  of  his  own  volition,  but  not 
the  record  of  some  one  else's  "  :  Hall  v. 
Hall,  37  L.  J.  P.  40. 


46 


INCAPACITY    ARISING   FROM   MENTAL   DISABILITIES. 


31 


dispose  of  his  property  contrary  to  his  iudcrment  or  dc- 

Whatconsti-       .    '  e   f  i    ^       ,  \    r  2 

tiites  undue  sirc/  111  conscquence  ot  iraudulcnt  re])rcsentations  ^  or 
importunities  and  external  pressure  whicli  he  was  too 
weak  to  resist,^  and  hence  always  contains  an  element  of  coer- 
Must  contain  ciou  or  fraud  destroying  free  agency  ;4  if  his  judgment 
an  element  of      ^^  ^^^  misled  by  falsc  representations,  nor  liis  will 

coercion  or  j  i  7 

fraud.  overpowered  by  irresistible  importunities,  no  influence 

brought  to  bear  upon  him  can  invalidate  his  will,  because  it  is  in 
such  case  free  from  the  element  of  coercion  or  fraud.^  No  precise 
line  can  be  drawn  distinguishing  legitimate  from  unlawful  influ- 
ence, except  the  general  one  thus  indicated  ;  ^  but  it  is  held  that 
„„  ,  .      ,     considerations  addressed  to  a  testator's  good  feelings, 

Wliat  IS  not  ^  ^ 

undue  in-        simply  influencing  his  better  judgment ; "  the  earnest 
solicitations  of  a  wife,^  or  the   exercise    of   influence 
springing  from  family  relations,  or  from  motives  of  duty,  affec- 
tion, or  gratitude  ;  ^  persuasion,  argument,  or  flattery  ;  ^**  kindness 


1  Forney  v.  Ferrell,  4  W.  Va.  729  ; 
Leverett  v.  Carlisle,  19  Ala.  80 ;  Marx  v. 
McGlynn,  88  N.  Y.  857  ;  Sunderland  v. 
Hood,  13  Mo.  App.  '232 ;  Stoutenburgh 
V.  Hopkins,  43  N.  J.  Eq.  577,  581 ;  Mar- 
shall V.  Flinn,  4  Jones  L.  199,  204. 

2  To  invalidate  a  will  on  the  ground 
of  false  representations  to  the  testator  it 
must  be  proved  that  such  representations 
were  made,  that  they  are  false,  and  that 
the  disposition  in  the  will  was  made  in 
consequence  thereof;  but  it  is  not  neces- 
sary to  prove  that  the  representations 
were  made  in  bad  faith  for  the  purpose  of 
procuring  the  will :  Smith  v.  Du  Bose,  3 
S.  E.  R.  (Ga.)  309,  318. 

3  Kinleside  v.  Harrison,  2  Phillim.449, 
551;  Chandler  v.  Ferris,  1  Harr.  (Del.) 
454,  464  et  seq. ;  Taylor  v.  Wilburn,  20 
Mo.  306,  309 ;  Brick  v.  Brick,  66  N.  Y. 
144,  149 ;  Layman  v.  Conrey,  60  Md.  286, 
292;  Will  of  Earns  worth,  62  Wis.  474; 
Maynard  v.  Vinton,  59  Mich.  139;  Sclio- 
field  V.  Walker,  58  Mich.  96,  106. 

4  Williams  i-.  Gonde,  1  Hagg.  577,  581 ; 
Gardiner  v.  Gardiner,  34  N.  Y.  155;  Gai- 
ther  V.  Gaither,  20  Ga.  709 ;  Stackhouse 
V.  Horton,  15  N.  J.  Eq.  202,  231 ;  Jackson 
V.  Hardin,  83  Mo.  175,  185 ;  Higgins  v. 
Carlton,  28  Md.  115;  Children's  Aid  So- 
ciety V.  Loveridge,  70  N.  Y.  387,  394  ; 
Potter's  Appeal,  63  Mich.  106,  113.     In 


Stewart  v.  Elliott,  2  Mackey,  307,  319,  it 
is  held  that  undue  influence  may  exist  in 
the  absence  of  fraud. 

5  Simmerman  v.  Songer,  29  Gratt.  9, 
24;  Shailer  v.  Bumstead,  99  Mass.  112, 
121  et  seq. ;  Latham  v.  Udell,  38  Mich. 
238  ;  AUmon  ;;.  Pigg,  82  III.  149  ;  Munroe 
V.  Barclay,  17  Ohio  St.  302,  314  et  seq. ; 
Parramore  v.  Taylor,  11  Gratt.  220,  239; 
Stoutenburgh  v.  Hopkins,  43  N.  J.  Eq. 
577,  590. 

6  Bo3'se  V.  Rossborough,  6  H.  L.  Cas. 
2,  47  ;  Lynch  v.  Clements,  24  N.  J.  Eq. 
431,  434  ;  Maynard  v.  Vinton,  59  Mich. 
139,  153. 

'  Tucker  v.  Field,  5  Redf.  139  ;  Potts 
V.  House,  6  Ga.  324,  359  ;  Wise  v.  Foote, 
81  Ky.  10,  15. 

8  Rankin  v.  Rankin,  61  Mo.  295,  300 ; 
Small  V.  Small,  4  Me.  220;  Jackman's 
Will,  26  Wis.  104,  116  ;  Stulz  v.  Scliaeffle, 
18  Eng.  L.  &  E.  576. 

9  Wait  V.  Breeze,  18  Hun,  403,  404  ; 
Hall  V.  Hall,  L.  R.  1  Prob.  &  Div.  481, 
482;  Rutherford  v.  Morris,  77  111.  397, 
412 ;  Matter  of  Mondui  t,  1 10  N.  Y.  450, 
456 ;  Hughes  v.  Murtha,  32  N.  J.  Eq.  288 ; 
Pierce  v.  Pierce,  38  Mich.  412;  Barnes  v. 
Barnes,  66  Me.  286,  297  ;  McCullogh  v. 
Campbell,  49  Ark.  367,  371. 

10  Potts  V.  House,  6  Ga.  324,  3-59; 
Chandler    v.   Ferris,    1    Harr.    454,   464; 


§  31         INCAPACITY   ARISING   FROM   UNDUE   INFLUENCE.  47 

and   attentions  to  the  testator  ;  ^  and  influence  worthily  exerted 
for  tlu;  benefit  of  others,^  cannot  be  considered  as  "  undue,"  so  as 
to  affect  the  validity  of  a  will  inspired  thereby.      The  opportunity 
mere  opportunity  to  exercise  influence  over  a  testator  ,\"e"',*"j"^ar. 
does  not,  even  in  connection  with  an  uniust  will,  war-  [?"*  prtjiump- 

'  _  J  7  j|„„  „f  undue 

rant  the  presumption  of  undue  influence,  in  the  absence  influence, 
of  affirmative  evidence  of  its  exercise,  where  the  testator's  minfi 
is  unimpaired,  and  he  imderstood  the  contents  of  his  will.'^ 

What  deti'rce  of  influence  will  vitiate  a  will  depends  much  upon 
the  bodily  and  mental  vigor  of  the  testator,  for  that  which  would 
overwhelm  a  mind  weakened  by  sickness,  dissipation,  ,^  ,     .  „ 

•'  111  Undue  mflu- 

or  age  might  prove  no  influence  at  all  to  one  of  strong  ence  over  a 
mind  in  the  vigor  of  life.*     The  question  to  be  decided  be  such  oVer  a 
is,  whether  the  testator  had  intelligence  enough  to  de-  ^^'"""S""'"^- 
tect  the  fraud,  and  strength  of  will  enough  to  resist  the  influence 
brought  to  bear  upon  him.^ 

Influence  is  never  presumed,  (except  in  the  case  to  be  consid- 
ered below,  between  attorney  and  client,  or  where  the  legatee 
sustained   a   fiduciary   relation   to   the   testator,)   but   ,  „ 

•'  .  ,     ^  Influence 

must  always  be  proved  by  the  party  alleging  it; ''not   must  always 

generally,  but  as  a  present  constraint  operating  at  the 

time  of  executing  the  will,"  and  the  proof  must  exclude  the  hy- 

O'Neall  V.  Farr,  1  Rich.  80,  84 ;  McDaiiiel  by  another  surrogate,  to  raise  the  pre- 

y.  Crosby,  1'.)  Ark.  533,  551;  Mclntire  v.  sumption  of  undue  influence  )     Estate  of 

McConn,  28  Iowa,  480,  486  ;  Schofield  r.  Brooks,  5t   Cal.  471,  474;    Hubbard    v. 

Walker,  68  xVIich.  96,  106.  Hubbard,  7  Or.  42,  47  ;  In  re  Martin,  US 

1  Miller  v.  Miller,  3  Serg.  &  R.  267,  N.  Y.  1'J3,  197  ;  Blake  v.  Rourke,  38  N. 
270  ;  Lowe  v.  Williamson,  2  N.  J.  Eq.  82,  W.  R.  (lo.)  392. 

88;   Den  v.  Gibbons,  22  N.    J.    L.    117,  *  Haydock  v.  Haydock,  33  N.  J.  Eq. 

158 ;  Gieespin's  Will,  26  N.  J.  Eq.  528,  494. 

527  ;  Rogers   v.  Diamond,   13  Ark.  474,  ^  Robinson,  J.,  in  Griflfith  v.    Diffen- 

483;    Eddy's    Case,  32   N.   J.    Eq.    701,  dorffi-r,  50  Md.  466,  480. 

708;    Wilson's   Appeal,    99  Pa.    St.   545.  ^  Humphrey's  Will,  20  N.J.  Eq.  518, 

551 ;  McCoy  v.  McCoy,  4  Redf.  54,  60.  521  ;   Ewen    r.    Perrine,    5    Redf.    640  ; 

2  Harrison's  Will,  1  B.  Mon.  351,  Davis  v.  Davis,  123  Mass.  590,  597  ; 
352 ;  Creely  v.  Ostrander,  3  Bradf.  107,  Webber  v.  Sullivan,  58  Iowa,  260,  264 ; 
112;  Tawney  v.  Long,  76  Pa.  St.  100,  Armstrong  ;•.  Armstrong,  63  Wis.  162; 
115.  Rockwell's  Appeal,  54  Conn   119. 

"  The  influence  must  be  specially  di-  "  Thompson    v.    Kyner,    65    Pa.    St. 

reeled  toward  procuring  a  will  in  favor  of  368,    379.    citing    earlier    Pennsylvania 

particular  parties  "  :  McCulloch  v.  Can)p-  cases  ;  McMahon  v.  Ryan,  20  Pa.  St.  329, 

bell,  49  Ark.  367,  371.  330;  the  ratification  of  a  will  drawn  un- 

3  McCoy  V.  McCoy,  4  Redf.  54,  60;  der  undue  influence  when  the  influence 
Iloban  r.  IMquette,  52  Mich.  346,  364.  has  been  removed,  cancels  the  objection 
(But  see  Demmert  v.  Schnell,  4  Redf.  to  the  validity  of  the  will  on  that  ground  : 
409,  as  to  what  opportunities  were  held,  Taylor  v.  Kelly,  31  Ala.  59,  71  ;  to  simi- 


48  INCAPACITY    ARISING    FROM   MENTAL   DISABILITIES.      §  31 


proved  by 

circuni- 

stauccs. 


pothesis  of  the  testator's  acting  upon  his  own  free  will.^     Like 
Mavbe  other  facts,  it  may  be  proved  circumstantially. ^     The 

contents  of  the  will  may  be  considered  in  connection 
with  the  testator's  disposition  and  affections,  and  decla- 
rations about  it,  as  indicating  whether  there  was  extraneous 
influence ; -^  remembering,  however,  that  the  unnatural  character 
of  the  will  does  not  of  itself  prove  undue  influence.*  So,  also, 
the  relations  which  the  testator  sustained  toward  the  legatees 
may  furnish  indicia;  and  it  is  held  that,  unlike  the  influence 
arising  from  gratitude,  affection,  or  esteem,  or  the  kind  offices  of 
a  wife  or  husband,  or  other  person  in  the  ordinary  social  relations 
of  life,  which  are  held  lawful  and  proper,  such  influence  arising 
from  unlawful  relations  is  undue  and  vitiates  the  will.^  That  a 
portion  of  the  testator's  estate  is  bequeathed  in  violation  of  the 
terms  of  a  family  settlement  does  not,  in  the  absence  of  proof  of 
fraud  or  undue  influence,  vitiate  the  will ;  the  rights  of  parties 
affected  may  be  enforced  on  the  distribution  of  the  estate.^ 


lar  effect   see   Shailer  v.   Bumstead,  99 
Mass.  112,  125. 

1  Boyse  v.  Rossborough,  stipra ;  May- 
nard  v.  Vinton,  59  Mich.  139, 153  ;  but  an 
instruction  to  the  jury,  that,  "in  order  to 
set  aside  the  will  on  the  ground  of  undue 
influence,  it  must  be  shown  that  the  cir- 
cumstances of  its  execution  are  inconsist- 
ent ivith  any  other  hi/pothesis  than  such  undue 
influence,"  was  held  erroneous :  Gay  v. 
Gillilan,  92  Mo.  250,  257. 

2  Reynolds  v.  Root,  62  Barb.  2-50; 
Beaubien  v.  Cicotte,  12  Mich.  459,  488 ; 
Jackman's  Will,  26  Wis.  104,  130 ;  Denny 
V.  Pinney,  12  Atl.  Rep.  ( Vt.)  108,  111 ;  Ty- 
ler V.  Gardiner,  35  N.  Y.  559  ;  Saunders's 
Appeal,  54  Conn.  108,  116;  Herster  v. 
Herster,  116  Pa.  St.  612.  Declarations 
of  the  testator  long  before  the  making  of 
the  will  are  competent  to  explain  prefer- 
ences :  Dye  v.  Young,  55  Iowa,  433 ; 
Moore  v.  McDonald,  12  Atl.  Rep.  (Md.) 
117,  120. 

2  Tyler  v.  Gardiner,  supra ;  Allen  v. 
Public  Administrator,  1  Bradf .  378,  386  ; 
McLaughlin  v.  McDevitt,  63  N.  Y.  213, 
217 ;  Denton  v.  Franklin,  9  B.  Mon.  28, 
30  ;  Storer's  Will,  28  Minn.  9, 12  ;  Potter 
I'.  Baldwin,  133  Mass.  427,  allowing  decla- 
rations of  the  testator,  both  before  and 
after  the  date  of  the  will,  to  be  given  in 


evidence,  and  citing  Shailer  v.  Bumstead, 
99  Mass.  112;  Lewis  v.  Mason,  109  Mass. 
169,  and  May  v.  Bradlee,  127  Mass.  414  ; 
Parsons  v.  Parsons,  66  Iowa,  754,  758 ; 
Whitman  v.  Morey,  68  N.  H.  448 ;  Her- 
ster V.  Herster,  116  Pa.  St.  612. 

4  Kevil  (,-.  Kevil,  2  Bush,  614;  Kitchell 
V.  Beach,  35  N.  J.  Eq.  446;  Webber  v. 
Sullivan,  58  Iowa,  260,  265.  But  in  Mis- 
souri it  was  held  that  this  may  throw  the 
onus  upon  the  proponents :  Gay  v.  Gilli- 
lan, 92  Mo.  2.50,  264. 

5  Denton  v.  Franklin,  9  B.  Mon.  28 
Dean  v.  Negley,  41  Pa.  St.  312,  817 
Rudy  V.  Ulrich,  69  Pa.  St.  177,  181  ;  Mc- 
Clure  V.  McClure,  6  S.  W.  R.  (Tenn.) 
44  ;  Kessinger  v.  Kessinger,  37  Ind.  341, 
343.  But.  the  existence  of  the  relation 
is  not  itself  proof,  nor  does  it  give  rise  to 
a  presumption  of  undue  influence  :  Main 
V.  Ryder,  84  Pa.  St.  217,  225;  Farr  v. 
Thompson,  Cheves,  37,  48  ;  Roe  v.  Tay- 
lor, 45  111.  485 ;  Sunderland  v.  Hood,  84 
Mo.  293,  affirming  s.  c,  13  Mo.  App. 
232,  236  et  seq. ;  Wainwright's  Appeal, 
89  Pa.  St.  220,  226 ;  Donnely's  Will, 
68  Iowa,  126 ;  Porschet  v.  Porschet,  82 
Ky.  93;  Matter  of  Mondorf,  110  N.  Y. 
450. 

6  Schaaber's  Appeal,  13  Atl.  R.  (Pa.) 
775. 


§  32  LEGACIES   TO    FIDUCIARY    ADVISERS.  49 

§  32.  Presumption  against  Legacies  to  Fiduciary  Advisers.  —  The 
rule  that  undue  influence  may  never  be  presumed,  but  must  be 
proved  by  the  person  ^vho  alleges  it,  is  subject  to  an  e.xception  in 
those  cases  in  which  a  legacy  is  given  by~a  testator  to  his  attor- 
ney, confidential  adviser,  guardian,  or  other  person  sustaining 
toward  him  anv  fiduciary  relation.     Proof  of  the  exist-  i^,.,    . 

.fiftuciarv 

ence  of  such  relation  raises  the  prcsumutio-n  of  undue  ''elation  of 
influence,  which  is  fatal  to  the  bequest  unless  rebutted   raises  pre- 
by  proof  of  full  deliberation  and  spontaneity  on  the    un'due"'" " 
part  of  the  testator,  aiid  good  faith  on  the  part  of  the    '"^"®°^®' 
legatee.!     The  presumption  extends  beyond  the  period  of  minor- 
ity in  the  case  of  guardian  and  ward,  so  as  to  invalidate 

•  11  11  •      n  r  1  •     n  t  Guardians. 

a  Will  made  by  a  person  m  lavor  of  his  lormer  guardian 
a  few  days  after  attaining  majority  ;  ^  and  a  bequest  to  the  wife  of 
a  guardian  likewise  gives  rise  to  the  presumption,  where  it  appears 
that  the  guardian  may  expect  and  derive  substantial  advantage 
and  benefit  from  such  will  of  his  ward.^  It  is  held  to  be  the  duty 
of  a  priest  acting  as  confessor  and  adviser  of  a  testator 

Priests. 

about  to  will  his  property  to  a  stranger  in  blood ,  to  make 
inquiries  touching  his  family  relations,  and  disinterestedly  advise 
him  as  to  his  duties  to  wife  and  children,  and  that  a  failure  to  do 
so  avoids  a  gilt  or  testamentary  donation,  although  it  be  not  to 
the  donee's  personal  benefit,  but  "  in  the  interest  of  religion  "  and 
for  "  his  spiritual  welfare."*  The  principle  avoiding  sucli  gifts 
cannot  be  evaded  by  giving  interests  to  third  persons,  instead  of 
those  who  exercise  the  undue  influence.^ 

1  Moek  r.  Pprrv.  P,Ci  Miss.  inO,  244  et  Yardley  v.  Cuthbertsnn,  108  Pa.  St.  395, 

sm.,  oiling  numerous  ICnglish  ami  Amer-  4ol  et  seq. ;  iloore  v.  Spier,  80  Ala.  129, 

ican    authorities ;    St.    Leger's   Will,   34  134. 

Cnnn.   434,   450;    Wilson    v.   Moran,    3  2  Garvin  y.  Williams,  44  Mo.  465, 469 

Bradf.  172,  180;  Breed  v.  Pratt,  18  Pick,  ct  se(j. 

11-3;  Miiller  v.  St.  Lonis  Hospital  Asso-  3  Briilwell  r.  Swank,  84  Mo.  455. 

ciation,  5  Mo.  App.  390,  397,  affirmed  in  *  Ford  v.  Hennessey,  70  Mo.  580,  587 

72  Mo.  242;  Harvey  v.  Sullens,  4G  Mo.  f<  <;e7..  citing  Kirwan  y.  Cullen,  4  Irish  Ch. 

147,  154;  Watterson  c.  Watterson,  1  Head,  (n.  s.)   322,   326   (sustaining  a  gift  infer 

1;   .Morris  v.  Stokes,  21  Ga.  552,  573  ;  In  r.Vos  in  trust);  Tiiompson  v.  Heffernan, 

re  Welsh,  1  Rcdf.  238,  245  et  seq. ;  Frew  4  Drury  &  W.  285,  2!»1  (a  donatio  mortis 

V.  Clarke,  80  Pa.  St.  170,  180;  Wilson's  causa  held  void)  ;  and  Hoghton  v.  Plogh- 

Appeal,  99   Pa.   St.   545,   551,  affirming  ton,  15  Beav.  278,  299  (avoiding  a  deed 

Cuthbertson's   Appeal,   97   Pa.    St.  103;  of  resettlement  of  family  estates  between 

Wilson  V.  Mitchell,  101  Pa.  St.  495,  505  ;  a  father  and  iiis  eldest  son,  executed  soon 

Post  I'.   Mason,  20  Him,  187;  Bristed  v.  after  the  son  attained  majority).     Mar.x 

Weeks,  5  Kedf.  529,  533 ;  Dale  v.  Dale,  38  v.  :McGlynn,  88  N.  Y,  357,  371. 
N.  J.  Eq.  274 ;  Brick  r.  Brick,  43  N.  J.  »  Ford    i:    Hennessey,    supra,    citing 

Eq.  167  ;  Montague  v.  Allan,  78  Va.  592;  Yosti  i;.  Laughran,  49  Mo.  694,  599,  and 
VOL    T.  — 4 


50         INCAPACITY   ARISING   FROM   MENTAL   DISABILITIES.      §  33 

The  same  presumption  arises  where  the  person  who  prepares 
the  instrument  or  conducts  its  execution  is  himself  benefited  by  its 
Sciiveners  provislous  ;  very  clear  proof  of  volition  and  capacity, 
of  will.  as  ^q\\  as  of   knowledge  by  the  testator  of  the  con- 

tents, is  necessary  in  such  case  to  tlie  validity  of  the  instrument.^ 
But  if  the  beneficiary  writing  the  will  is  a  near  relative,  who  would 
take  a  considerable  share  of  the  estate  if  there  were  no  will,  tlie 
presumption  which  might  arise  against  a  stranger  is  not  applica- 
ble to  him.2  The  appointment  of  the  scrivener  as  executor  is  not 
sufficient  to  require  affirmative  proof  that  the  paper  was  drawn  in 
accordance  with  the  instructions  of  the  testator,  or  that  he  is 
aware  of  its  contents  and  legal  effect.^  In  Georgia,  the  rule 
requiring  evidence  to  rebut  the  presumption  of  undue  influence 
by  the  scrivener  of  a  will  who  is  benefited  by  it  has  been 
denied.* 

§  33.  Presumption  as  to  Seamen's  "Wills. — A  similar  exception 
to  the  ordinary  rules  and  presumptions  by  which  the  intention  of 
Similar  pre-    tcstators  is  to  bc  ascertained  is  made  in  the  case  of 

sumption  in  .   . 

capeofthe  scamcn,^  whose  temporary  necessities  are  considered 
7eamen.  to  Operate  upou  them  as  a  sort  of  duress  on  the  part 

Ranken  v.  Patton,  6-5  Mo.  378,  390  et  seq.;  ence  that  the  will,  having  been  written 

Drake's  Appeal,  45  Conn.  9,  18.  by  tlie  beneficiary,  is  subsequently  coijied 

1  Wms.  on  Ex.  [112],   citing  English  by  another:  Kelly  v.  Settcgast,  08  Tex 

and  American  authorities  ;  Cheatham  v.  13,  20. 

Hatcher,  .30  Gratt.  66,69;  Post  f.  Mason,  -  Caldwell   v.  Anderson,   104  Pa.   St. 

01  N.  Y.  639,  reported  in  3  Am.  Prob.  R.  109,  206.     But  even  in  such  case,  when 

43,  where  numerous  cases  are  cited.     It  the  evidence  shows  that  the  will  was  not 

is  said  in  this  case,  l)y  Danforth,  J.,  that  read   by  the  testator,  nor   explained   to 

"the  relation  of  attorney  and  draughts-  him,  the  burden  of  showing  that  the  will 

man  no  doubt  gave,  in  the  case  before  was  drawn  as  directed  by  the  testator  is 

us,   the   opportunity    for    influence,    and  on  the  beneficiary  :    Blume  v.  Hartman, 

self-interest  might  supply  a   motive   to  115  Pa.  St.  32. 

unduly  exert  it,  but  its  exercise  cannot  ^  Linton's   Appeal,   lOi   Pa.   St.   228, 

be  presumed  in  aid  of  those  who  seek  to  237. 

overthrow  a  will  already  established  by  *  Carter  v.  Dixon,  69  Ga.  82,  80.     In 

the  judgment   of  a  competent  tribunal,  Stirling  v.  Stirling,  64  Md.  138,  147,  it  is 

rendered   in   proceedings   to   which    the  said  that   it   is   not  always  a  suspicious 

plaintiflTs  were  themselves  parties,  nor  in  circumstance   against   the   validity  of  a 

the  absence  of  evidence  warrant  a  pre-  will,  that  the  writer  is  largely  benefited 

sumption  that  the    intention  of  the  tes-  by  it. 

tator  was  improperly,  much  less  fraud-  °  "  It  is  the  policy  of  the  law  of  this 
ulently,  controlled."  See  also  Crispell  country,"  says  Sir  John  NichoU  in  the 
V.  Dubois,  4  Barb.  393,  398 ;  Cramer  v.  case  of  Zacharias  v.  CoUis,  3  Phil.  176, 
Crumbaugh,  3  Md.  491,  499;  Caldwell  "and  of  several  others,  to  grant  special 
V.  Anderson,  104  Pa.  St.  199;  Yardley  indulgences,  and  to  extend  special  protec- 
ts. Cuthbertson,  15  Phila.  77  ;  s.  c.  108  Pa.  tions  to  the  testamentary  intentions  of 
St.  395,  456  et  seq.     It  makes  no  differ-  this  class  of  persons." 


§  34  PARTIAL    AVOIDANCE   OF    WILL.  51 

of  those  who  arc  to  furiiisli  tlie  siipi)!}'.^  It  was  therefore 
licld,  that,  although  tlie  statute  ^  provides  "  that  no  will  of  any 
seaman  contained,  pi'inted,  or  written  in  the  same  instrinnenf, 
paper  or  parchment,  with  a  warrant  or  letter  of  attc^rney,  shall 
be  good  or  available  in  law  to  any  intent  or  purpose  w'hatsoever," 
yet  a  will  was  invalid  when  executed  on  a  different  instrument 
from  the  power  of  attorney.^  Neither  the  relation  of  agent  and 
seaman,  nor  tlie  indebtedness  of  the  seaman  to  his  agent,  operates 
as  an  absolute  defeasance  of  the  will ;  but  there  must  be  clear 
proof  in  such  cases  of  the  subscription  of  the  deceased  to  the 
instrument,  and  of  his  knowledge  of  its  nature  and  effect :  if 
executed  merely  as  a  security  for  a  debt,  it  shall  not  operate  as  a 
testamentary  disposition  of  the  whole  property  ;  but  if  there  be 
satisfactory  evidence  of  an  intention  to  dispose  of  the  property 
by  will,  the  instrument  shall  be  valid  although  there  be  a 
debt.^ 

§  34.    Partial  Avoidance  of  "Will  by  Undue  Influence.  —  If  undue 
influence  or  fraud,  though  exercised  by  one  legatee  only,  affect 
the  wdiole  will,  the  whole  will  is  void  ;^  but  both  justice  ^^;j, 
and  policy  require  that  the  rejection  of  a  legacy  ob-  be  avoided 

i  J  ^  •>  '-".•'.     in  part  and 

tained  by  fraud  or  undue  influence  should  not  invali-  sustained  in 
date  other  provisions  in  the  same  will  in  favor  of 
legatees  who  have  not  resorted  to  improper  means.^  For  the  like 
reason,  an  erasure  or  alteration  in  the  will,  though  found  to  have 
been  made  after  execution,  does  not  avoid  the  will  in  toto ;  if 
made  by  a  stranger,  and  the  original  legacy  be  known,  it  will 
have  no  legal  effect,  the  legacy  wall  be  still  recoverable,  and  ought 
to  be  proved  as  it  originally  stood ;  but  if  made  by  the  legatee 
himself,  it  will  avoid  the  legacy  so  altered,  but  cannot  destroy 
other  bequests  in  the  will,  either  to  such  legatee  or  others.^ 
Hence  a  will  may  be  valid   as  to  some  of  its  dispositions,  and 


1  Wms.  Ex.  [51].  *  Wms.  Ex.   [53],  citing  Zacliarias  v. 

2  9  &  10  Will.  III.  c.  41,  §  6;  repealed  Collis,  supra,  and  Peardsley  v.  Fleming,  2 
and  re-enacted  by  55  Geo.  III.  c.  60,  §  4  ;  Cas.  Temp.  Lee,  98. 

also  1  &2  Geo.IV.  c.  49,  §  2:  and  see  ^  Florey  v.  Floiey,  24  Ala.  241,  248. 

11  Geo.  IV.  and  1  Will,  iv!  c.  20,  §§  48  «  in    re    Welsh,    1    Redf.    238,    247; 

et  seq.;  28  &  29  Vict.  c.  72,  §  4.  Raker's  Will,  2  Redf.   179,    197  ;   Harri- 

8  Zacharias  v.  Collis,  3   i'liillim.  170,  son's  Appeal,  48  Conn.  202,  204. 

citing  Craig  v.  Lester,  p.  189  ;  also  Moore  "  Smith  v.  Fenner,  1   Gall.  C.  C.  170, 

V.  Smart,  p.  190;   Hay  y.  MuUo,  p.  194;  174. 
Forbes  v.  Burt,  p.  190. 


52  INCAPACITY   ARISING    FROM    MENTAL  DISABILITIES.       §  35 

invalid  as  to  others.     This  doctrine  will  he  further  considered  in 
connection  with  the  probate  of  wills. ^ 

§  35.    Wills  of  Deaf,  Dumb,  and   Blind  Persons.  —  The  imperfec- 
tions of  deaf,  dumb,  and  blind  persons,  although  in  no  wise  in- 
consistent with  perfect  testamentary  capacity,  demand 

Wills  of  deaf,  ^      ,  c      c    ■,     •         ■^^  -r, 

dumb,  and  spccial  precautions  in  the  proof  of  their  wills.  Persons 
n'oTnecessa-^  bom  deaf,  blind,  and  dumb  were  by  Blackstone  classed 
niy  void.  -^yH]^  "  thosc  who  are  incapable,  by  reason  of  mental 
disability,  to  make  a  will."  Surrogate  Bradford  points  out  ^  that 
this  rule  —  borrowed  from  the  civil  law,  which  itself  allowed  the 
testatory  power  where  these  defects  were  not  congenital  —  must 
of  necessity  be  qualified  by  the  reason  of  it,  which  was  a  presumed 
want  of  capacity.^  If,  therefore,  a  person,  although  deaf,  dumb, 
and  blind,  have  received  such  education  as  to  endow  him  with 
ordinary  intellectual  powers,  he  may  make  a  valid  will;*  a  forti- 
ori, where  the  person  is  blind,  but  not  deaf  and  dumb,^  or  deaf  and 
dumb,  but  not  blind.^  In  all  such  cases  it  is  necessary  to  prove, 
to  the  entire  satisfaction  of  the  court  or  jury  passing 
proof  must  upon  the  validity  of  the  will,  that  the  testator  was  ac- 
quainted with  its  contents.''  It  is  not  necessary,  ordi- 
narily, to  prove  that  the  will  was  read  by  or  to  the  testator  before 
executing  it ;  ^  but  if  evidence  be  given  that  the  testator  was 
blind,  or  could  not  read,  or,  for  any  reason,  was  unacquainted 
with  its  contents,  such  evidence  must  be  met  by  satisfactory  proof, 
either  that  the  will  was  read  to  or  by,  or  that  the  contents  were 
known  to,  the  testator.^  Modern  authorities  go  no  further  than 
to  require  very  great  scrutiny,  in  such  cases,  into  the  testator's 
knowledge  and  approval  of  the  contents  of  the  will ;  ^^  and  "  it  is 

1  Post,  §  222.  ^  Because,  as  a  general  rule,  the  per- 

2  In  the  case  of  Weir  v.  Fitzgerald,  2  son  signing  an  instrument  is  presumed  to 
Bradf.  42,  68.  know  its  contents  :   Androscoggin  Bank 

3  ".  .  .  who,  as  they  have  always  i;.  Kimball,  10  Ciish.  373,  374;  which  rule 
wanted  the  common  inlets  of  understand-  applies  to  wills  as  well  as  to  other  instru- 
ing,  are  incapable  of  having  animum  tes-  ments :  Muniiikliuysen  v.  Magraw,  35 
tundi,  and  their  testaments  are  therefore  Md.  280,  287  ;  Downey  v.  Murphy,  1  Dev. 
void  " :  2  Bla.  Comm.  497.  &  B.  L.  82,  87. 

*  Reynolds  v.  Reynolds,  1  Speers,  253,  9  Harrison  v.  Rowan,  3  Wash.  C.  C. 

257.  580,  585;  Wampler  v.  Wampler,  9  Md. 

6  Ray  V.  Hill,  3  Strobh.  L.  297,  302;  540,*550;  Martin  v.  Mitchell,  28  Ga.  382, 
Wilson  V.  Mitchell,  101  Pa.  St.  495.  385 ;  Guthrie  v.  Price,  28  Ark.  396,  403 

s  Gombault  v.  Public  Administrator,  4  et  seq. ;  Day  v.  Day,  3  N.  J.  Eq.  549,  552. 
Bradf.  226,  230.  ^"  Bigelow's  note  1  to  1  Jarm.  on  Wills, 

7  Davis  V.  Rogers,  1  Roust.  44,  93.  *34,  b.  p.  46. 


§  35  WILLS   OF   DEAF,   DUMB,    AND   BLIND   PERSONS.  53 

almost  superfluous  to  observe,  that,  in  ])ropurt;on  as  tlie  infirmi- 
ties of  a  testator  expose  him  to  deception,  it  becomes  imperatively 
the  duty,  and  should  be  anxiously  the  care,  of  all  persons  assisting 
in  the  testamentary  transaction,  to  be  prepared  with  the  clearest 
proof  that  no  imposition  has  been  practised."  ^ 

1  1  Jarm.  on  Wills,  *34,  Bigelow's  note  (1) ;  1  Redf.  on  Wills,  58. 


54  FORM,    EXECUTION,   AND   ATTESTATION   OF   WILLS.       §  36 


CHAPTER   V. 

FORM,   EXECUTION,    AND    ATTESTxVTION    OF   WILLS. 

§  36.    Absolute  and  Conditional  Wills.  —  The  office  of   a  will  — 

more  accurately  called  last  will  or  testament  —  is  to  control  the 

disposition,  in  the  manner  desired  by  the  testator,  of 

Office  of  wills.  ^  c  ,  .        T        ,  1     •  c      1 

his  property  after  his  death,  and,  in  many  of  the 
States,!  as  under  the  statute  of  12  Car.  II.  c.  24,  to  appoint  a 
guardian  for  his  minor  children.^  In  its  essential  nature  a  will 
Thev  are  am-  ^^  ambulatoi'y,  for  it  is  not  operative  before  the  tes- 
buiatory,  tator's  death,  until  which  time  it  can  vest  no  rights  in 

others,  and  may  therefore  be  revoked  or  changed  at  the  testa- 
tor's pleasure.^     It  is  usually  absolute  in  its  provisions, 

usually  abso-  '■  ,.   .         , 

lute,  but  may     but   may  be  made   conditional   upon   the   happenmg 

be  coiiditioual.        „  i  -\    •      l^  •  i  ^  ^  , 

of  some  event,  and  is  then  void  unless  such  event 
happen.*  In  such  case  it  is  important  to  ascertain,  first,  whether 
the  intention  of  the  testator  is  to  make  the  validity  of  the  will 
dependent  upon  the  condition,  or  merely  to  state  the  circum- 
stances inducing  him  to  make  the  testamentary  provision  ;  and 
next,  whether,  if  the   language  clearly  imports  a  condition,  it 

applv  to  the  whole  will,  or  affect  only  some  part  of 

Case  illus'rat-        '  i    .^ 

int? diiitiiicticn    \tj>    The  casc  of  Frciich   v.  French^  presents  some 

between  abso-  •  c      ,  ii  •  ,'  i  -ji 

lute  and  con-  mstructivG  features  on  this  question,  and  may  with 
ditionaiwiii.  p^.^p^^  ^^  noticed  in  extenso.  The  will  was  a  holo- 
graph, in   the   following   form :    "  Let   all  men  know  hereby,  if 

1  In  all  of  them  except  Iowa  and  Ne-  the  parties,  is  a  contract  inter  vivos,  and 
braska,  in  the  statutes  of  which  no  pro-  not  revoked  by  a  subsequent  will:  Book 
visions  to  this  effect  have  been  met  with.     v.  Book,  104  Pa.  St.  240. 

The  power  is  given  in  all  cases  to  the  *  1  Jarm.  on  Wills,  *17  et  seq. ;  Mor- 

father,  in  many  of  them  also  to  the  sur-  row's  Appeal,  116  Pa.  St.  440 ;  Maxwell 

viving  mother,  and  in  two  or  three  States  v.  Maxwell,  3  Mete.  (Ky.)  101, 104  ;  Jacks 

the  power  to  the  father   is  conditioned  v.  Henderson,  1  Desaus.  543,  554. 

upon   the  consent  of    the    mother.     In  ^  Damon  v.  Damon,  8  Allen,  192,  104 

Maine,  New  Hampshire,  and  Ohio,  the  et  seq. ;  Tarver  v.  Tarver,  9  Pet.  174,  179; 

testamentary  appointment  operates  only  Ex   parte  Lindsay,  2    Bradf.  204,  206 ; 

if  held  suitable  by  the  probate  court.  Thompson    v.    Conner,    3    Bradf.    366 ; 

2  Balch  V.  Smith,  12  N.  H.  437,  440;  2  Kelleher  v.  Kernan,  60  Md.  440;  Like- 
Kent  Comm.  *224  et  seq.  field  v.  Likefield,  82  Ky.  689. 

3  See  infra,  §  37.    An  instrument  vest-  ^  14  W.  Va.  458. 
ing  rights  upon  delivery,  enforceable  by 


^  36  ABSOLUTE    AND    CONDITIONAL    WILLS.  55 

I  get  drowned  this  morning,  March  7,  1872,  that  I  bequeath  all 
my  ])roi)erty,  personal   and  real,  to  my   beloved  wife,  Florence. 
Witness  my  hand  and  seal,  7th  of  March,  1872.     Wm.  T.  French." 
It  was  proved,  on  the  propounding  of  the  will,  that  French  was 
about  to  cross  a  deep  river  ;  that  his  wife,  being  afraid  that  some 
accident  would  hai)i)en,  was  anxious  that  he  should  not  go  ;  that 
decedent  started  out  of  the  room,  and  then  came  back  and  wrote 
the  will.     It  also  appeared  in  the  cuusc '  that  French  had  no  chil- 
dren ;  that  he  was  not  drowned  on  the  day  of  writing  the  will,  but 
died  on  the  29th  of  December,  1874  ;  that  if  he  had  died  on  the 
day  of  the  date  of  said  will,  his  wife  would  have  been  the  sole  legal 
heir  of  her  husband  ;  but  that  after  that  day,  and  before  the  day 
of  his  death,  the  law  of  descent  was  so  amended,  that  the  father 
of  the  deceased  was  his  sole  legal  heir.     It  was  also  proved,  in  the 
proceeding  to  set  aside  the  probate  of  said  will,  that  the  testator 
subsequently  recognized  the  writing  as  a  valid  will ;  but  the  court 
held  such  testimony  inadmissible.^     Upon  these  facts  the  majority 
of  the  court,  after  an  extensive  revie^v  of  English  and  American  au- 
thorities bearing  upon  the  question  of  contingent  wills,^  reached  the 
conclusion  that  "  it  was  the  intention  and  puri)Ose  of  the  decedent 
that  said  paper  writing  should  be  his  unconditional  will  and  testa- 
ment, giving  to  his  wife  Florence  all  of  his  real  and  personal  estate 
at  his  death,  whether  natural  or  otherwise  ;  and  the  court,  in  order 
to  give  effect  to  the  intention  of  the  decedent,  will  presume  that  said 
paper  writing  was  executed  in  contemplation  of  any  change  of  the 
law  of  descents  as  to  legal  heirship  which  might  be  and  was  made 
between  the  date  of  the  said  will  and  the  death  of  the  decedent."  ^ 
The  president  of  the  court  dissented,  holding  it  to  be  self-evident 
that  the  words  of  the  will,  "  if  I  get  drowned,"  &c.,  could  not  pos- 
sibly mean  "  as  I  may  get  drowned,"  &c.*     Four  of  the  five  judges 
concurred  in  the  majority  opinion,  rendered  by  Haymon,  J. 

1  Page  506  of  the  opinion.  gram   v.   Strong,  2  Phill.   294 ;  Jacks  r. 

-  Mentioning,  as  liolding  wills  absolute  Henderson,  supra  ;  Sinclair  v.  Hone,  0  Ves. 

because  the   contingencies   were  therein  G07 ;  Wagner  i-.  McDonald,  2  Harr.  .&  J. 

mentioned  as  inducements,  Cody  v.  Conly,  340  ;    Todd's   Will,   2  Watts   &  S.   145  ; 

27Gratt.  313;  Goods  of  Dobson,  1  P.  &  D.  Maxwell   v.  Maxwell,  supra;  Dougherty 

(L.  R.)  88;  Goods  of  Martin,  1  P.  &  D.  v  Dougherty,  4  Mete.  (Ky.)  25;  McGee 

(L.  R.)  380;  Thome's  Case,  4  Sw.  &  Tr.  v.  McNeil,  41   Miss.  17;  Robnett  v.  Ash. 

36 ;  Skipwith  v.  Cabell,  19  Gratt.  758  ;  and  lock,  49  Mo.  171. 

as  holding  wills  conditional  and  void  be-  ^  Page  503  of  the  opinion, 

cause  the  contingency  did   not   happen,  *  Page  507. 
Parsons  r.  Lanoe,  1  Ves.  Sen.  189;   In- 


56  FORM,    EXECUTION,    AKD    ATTESTATION    OF   WILLS.        §  37 

§  87.  Joint  and  Mutual  "Wills.  —  It  follows  from  the  ambulatory 
quality  of  wills,  that  a  testator  cannot  by  will  deprive  himself  of 
^  ,  his  power  to  revoke  a  testamentary  disposition.^     It  is 

Rule  as  to  ^  .    .  .         p  , 

joint  or  iiiu-  therefore  said  that  the  conjoint  will  of  several  testators 
cannot  be  admitted  to  probate,  as  being  unknown  to 
the  testamentary  law.^  Jarman,  in  the  earlier  editions  of  his  work 
on  Wills,  inclines  to  this  vievv;^  but  in  the  last  edition  he  an- 
nounces that  two  or  more  persons  may  make  a  joint  will,  which, 
if  properly  executed  by  each,  is,  so  far  as  his  own  property  is 
concerned,  as  much  his  will,  and  is  as  well  entitled  to  probate 
Mav  be  admit-  upon  the  death  of  each,  as  if  he  had  made  a  separate 
ted'to  probate  ^ill.*  It  scems  clcar,  that  if  two  or  more  persons 
join  in  making  a  will,  or  make  mutual  wills  dependent  upon  each 
other,  so  that  the  mutual  wills  or  joint  will  of  all  becomes  a  johit 
.,    ,       ,    ,    transaction,  each  of  the  testators  may,  by  exercising 

if  not  revoked  '  ./  7     ./  ^ 

by  any  of  the     his   powcr   of   rcvocatiou,  dcstroy   the   testamentary 

character  or  validity  of  the  instrument,  at  least  to  the 

extent  of  his  interest  therein.^     This  follows  from  the  revocability 

„  ^  .0       ,   ,    of  wills.     But  in  so  far  as  a  joint  oi"  mutual  will  may 

But  II  revoked  •*  ,  1  •   i      1 

as  a  will,  it        rest  upou  a  mutual  agreement,  according  to  which  the 

may  be  en-  .  n     ,        .       ,  i    1  •      n  i-i- 

forced  as  a  executiou  of  tlic  instrument  by  one  is  the  condition 
or  consideration  for  its  execution  by  another,  the  ele- 
ment of  contract  is  superadded  to  the  transaction ;  and,  as  a  con- 
tract, the  instrument  is  of  course  irrevocable  without  the  consent 
of  all  the  parties  to  it.^  In  this  sense,  the  law  making  a  will 
based  upon  a  valuable  consideration  binding  as  a  contract  is  fully 
applicable."     Hence,  if  one  of  the  parties  to  a  joint  or  mutual  will 

1  "  The  making  of  a  will  is  but  the  testamentary  law  of  England.  .  .  .  How- 
inception  of  it,  and  it  doth  not  take  any  ever,  such  a  will,  may,  it  should  seem,  in 
effect  till  the  deatii  of  the  devisor ;  for  some  cases,  be  enforced  in  equity  as  a 
omne  testament'  moite  consummat'  est,  et  vo-  compact  "  :  I  Jarm.  on  Wills,  27  (2d 
litntas  est   ambniatoria  usque  ad   extremnm  Am.   ed.). 

vitiB  exitvm.      Then  it  would  be  against  *  1    Jarm.    (Bigelow's    5th    American 

the  nature  of  a  will  to  be  so  absolute  that  from  the  4th  English  edition),  *18. 

he  who  makes  it,  being  of  good  and  per-  ^  Hobson   v.  Blackburn,  1  Add.  274 ; 

feet  memory,  cannot  countermand   it"  :  Walpole  v.  Oxford,  3  Ves.  402,  415. 

Ferse  &  Hembling's  Case,  4  Co.  61  b.  It  is  provided  in   the  Code  of  Geor- 

2  Clayton  w.  Liverman,  2  Dev.  &  B.  L.  gia  (Code,  1882,  §  2470),  that  even  in 
558;  Hobson  v.  Blackburn,  1  Add.  274,  case  of  mutual  wills  with  a  covenant 
277  ;  Walker  v.  Walker,  14  Oh.  St  157 ;  against  revocation,  the  power  of  revo- 
Hershey  v.  Clark,  35  Ark.  17,  23.  cation  remains. 

3  So  in  Perkins's  2d  American  edition  ^  Schouler  on  Wills,  §  455. 
(1849),  where  he  says  :  "  A  joint  or  mu-  "^  Infra,  p.  58,  note  8. 

tual  will  is  said  to  be  unknown  to   the 


§  37  JOINT  AND   MUTUAL   WILLS.  57 

die  without  having  revoked  it,  and  the  survivor  benefit  therel)}', 
the  will  may  be  enforced  in  equity,  as  a  compact,  against  revoca- 
tion 1)V  tlie  survivor.!  The  doctrine  announced  by  Jarnian  in  the 
hiter  editions  seems,  therefore,  incontrovertible  on  principle,  and 
is  sanctioned  by  the  current  of  English  and  American  decisions. 
It  asserts  the  revocability  of  joint  and  mutual  wills  as  testamen- 
tary dispositions  of  property,  and  therefore  entitled  to  probate  as 
such,  to  be  consistent  with  their  irrevocability  as  contracts,  and 
therefore  enforceable  in  cijuity  if  broken  by  the  revocation  of  the 
testamentary  disposition.^  Accordingly,  if  by  two  j^i^t  ,viii  may 
mutual  wills,  or  m  a  ioint  will,  two  testators  will  their  be  admitted  to 

'  "  '  ,  pro  hate  on 

respective  estates  to  the  survivor  of  them,  without  death  of  testa- 

,...,,  .11       c    j_i  tor  first  dving. 

further  testamentary  disi)osition,  the  will  ot  the  one 
who  first  dies  (which  is  the  joint  will)  is  entitled  to  probate,  and 
the  survivor  may  then  dispose  of  the  property  devised  at  pleas- 
ure, for  the  will  has  fully  accomplished  its  office,  and  made  the 
property  his.^  But  if  a  joint  will  contains  provisions  for  other 
purposes,  or  legacies  to  other  persons,  it  cannot  take   ^  .     ,    . 

^       ^  '  °  .  ,        Joint  devise  to 

effect  as  to  such  until  it  receive  probate  upon  the  third  parties 
death  of  the  last  surviving  testator.*    Surrogate  Brad-  St^r  deaTii  of 
ford,  in  discussing  this  question,  points  out  that  the  [eJator''"'"" 
decision  of  Sir  John  NichoU  in  Hobson  v.  Blackburn 
has  been  misconceived ;  that,  instead  of  deciding  that  a  compact 
of  a  testamentary  character  could  not  be  proved  as  a  will  because 
it  was    a  mutual   or   conjoint  act,  he   only  held  that   such    an 
instrument  could  not  be  set  up  as  irrevocable  against  a  subse- 
quent will   revoking  it;    and  he   also  shows  that  this  ruling  is 
in  harmony  with  the  civil  law.^     And  the  Supreme  Court  of  Ohio 

1  Story  Eq.  §  785 ,  Dufour  r.  Pereira,  Lewis  v.  Scofield,  26  Conn.  452,  454; 
1  Dick.  -119.  Evans  v.  Smith,  28  Ga.  98,  104;   Scliu- 

2  See  1  Jarm.  on  Wills,  *18,  note  (1),  maker  i'.  Schmidt,  44  Ala.  4.54,  464;  In 
ot  American  annotator  ;  Ex  parte  Day,  1  res  Dloz,  50  N.  Y.  88,  92  ;  E.x  parte  Day, 
Bradf  476  :  1  Uedf,  on  Wills,  182  ;  Scliou-  1  Bradt".  470  ;  Bynura  v.  Bynum,  11  Ired. 
ler  on  Wills,  §  455,  p.  4<i0  ;  Gould  v.  Mans-  L.  fi.')2,  607. 

field,  103  Mass.  408;  Izard  v.   Middleton,  <  Schumakerr.  Schmidt.  SM/)m  ;  Goods 

1  Desaus.   U6  ,  Wyche  i;  Clapp.  43  Tex.  of  Raine,    1    S\v.  &  Tr.  144;    Goods  of 

548,  548;   March  v.  Hiiyter,  50  Tex  243,  Lovetrrove,  2  Sw.  &  Tr.  453,455;  Black 

252;   Breatiiitt  v.  Whittaker.    8  B    Mon.  v  Riciiards,  95  Ind.  184,  189. 
530  534;  see  also  Towle  r  Wood,60N.  H.  &  Ex    parte    Day,   1    Bradf.   476.   482, 

434  (annoimcmg  such  to  he  the  law,  al-  quoting  from  Eassmore  v.  Passmore,   1 

thoiiiili  tlie  will   was  held  void  for  want  Pliill.    216  ;    Masterman   v.    Maherly,    2 

of  the  required  formalities  of  execution).  Haggc-  285;    Domat.  pt.  2,  lib.    3,  tit.  1. 

3  The  joint  will,  in  such  cases,  is  but  See  also  Goods  of  Stracpy,  Dea  &  Sw  6  ; 
tlie   will  of  the  testator  who  des   first:  Rogers,  Appellant,  11  Me.  303,305. 


58  FOEM,    EXECUTION,    AND   ATTESTATION    OF    WILLS.        §  37 

have  expressly  disavowed  Walker  v.  Walker,^  in  so  far  as  the 
decision  of  that  case  indicates  the  policy  of  Ohio  to  be  opposed 
to  joint  wills,  and  affirmatively  hold  that  several  persons  may 
dispose  of  their  property  by  joint  will,  being  in  effect  the  will  of 
each,  revocable  by  each,  and  subject  to  probate,  either  severally 
upon  the  death  of  each  testator,  as  his  will,  or  jointly  after  the 
death  of  all,  as  the  wall  of  each  and  all  of  them.^ 

The  will  of  a  husband  and  wife,  though  joint  in  form,  is  not  a 
joint  will,  if  the  property  devised  belongs  to  the  husband  or  wife 
only  ;  ^  and  where  such  a  will  is  contingent,  it  is  void  if  the  con- 
tingency does  not  happen.*  But  where  husband  and  wife  had 
joint  power  to  devise,  and  had  executed  it  by  joint  will,  neither  of 
them  can  revoke  the  joint  will  so  made  by  a  separate  will.^ 

In  Louisiana  mutual  and  joint  wills  are  prohibited  by  statute ;  ^ 
in  Georgia  the  power  of  revoking  mutual  wills  is  secured  by  stat- 
ute, even  if  there  be  a  covenant  in  such  will  against  revocation.'^ 

It  may  be  worth  while  to  mention,  in  this  connection,  the  equi- 
table principle,  that  where  an  instrument,  though  clearly  testa- 
Wills  upon  a  nientary  in  form  and  verbiage,  is  executed  on  a  valuable 
consideration      consideration,  it  constitutes  an  irrevocable  contract, 

mav  be  en- 
forced in  equity  which  a  court  of  equity  will,  as  near  as  may  be  pos- 
sible, specifically  enforce ;  ^  and  this  although  the 
agreement  was  by  parol,  if  not  avoided  by  the  Statute  of  Frauds.^ 
So,  also,  a  binding  agreement  between  a  testator  and  his  heir  at 
law  will  be  enforced,  although  repudiated  by  his  will.^*^  It  is  well 
settled  that  a  contract  to  make  a  certain  provision  by  will  for  a 
particular  person  is  valid  if  founded  on  a  sufficient  consideration;^^ 

1  14  Oh.  St.  157.  8  Johnson  v.  Hubbell,  10  N.  J.  Eq.  332, 

'^  Betts  V.  Harper,  39  Oh.  St.  639,  citing  385  ;    Rivers  v.    Rivers,   3   Desaus.    190, 

numerous  authorities  to  similar  effect.  194;  Wright  v.  Tinsley,  30  Mo.  389,  396; 

3  Rogers,  Appellant,  sM/)ra ;  Kunnen  i'.  Parsell   v.    Stryker,  41   N.   Y.  480,  485; 

Zurline,  2  Gin.  440,  447  ;  Allen  v.  Allen,  Bolman  v.  Overall,  80  Ala.  451,  454  ;  and 

28  Kan.  18,  24.  see  cases  mfra. 

*  Goods  of  Hugo,  L.  R.  2  P.  D.  73.  ^  Shakespeare  v.  Markham,  10  Hun, 

5  Breathitt  v.  Whittaker,  8  B.  Mon.  311,  322  ;  Bolman  v.  Overall,  supra  ,• 
530,  534.  Glark,  J.,  in  Burgess  v.  Burgess,  109  Ta. 

6  Code,  art.  1565, 1572.     But  this  pro-  St.  312,  316. 

hibition  does  not  extend  to  the  wills  of  i"  Taylor  i\  Mitcbell,  87  Pa.  St.  518; 

husband  and  wife,  or  of  any  two  persons,  see  also  Meck's  Appeal,  97  Pa.  St.  313, 

in  favor  of  the  same  beneficiary,  although  316. 

written  out  by  the  same  party,  on    the  ^i  Wellington   i\   Apthorp,   145  Ma«s. 

same  day,  if  separately  attested :  Wood  69.  72  ;  Gaviness   v.   Rushton,    101  Ind. 

»;.  Roane,  35  La.  An.  865,  869.  600. 

7  Gode,  1882,  §  2470. 


§  38  GENERAL    llULES    AS   TO   THE    FORM    OF    WILLS.  59 

an  action  will  lie  for  the  breach  tluMvof,'  or  specific  ijerf(jruiance 
may  be  decreed,^  or  if  the  action  for  specific  performance  is  ile- 
feated  by  the  Statute  of  Frauds,  an  action  on  the  qiumfum  meruit  is 
maintainable  to  recover  for  the  services  rendered.'^  While  services 
rendered  on  a  mere  expectation  of  a  legacy  do  not  constitute  a 
good  cause  of  action,  yet  an  action  lies  for  the  breach  of  a  [)rom- 
isc  to  pay  for  services  by  a  legacy.*  And  where  services  are 
rendered  by  a  son,  under  the  general  expectation  of  compensation 
by  will  or  otherwise,  the  mode  being  left  to  the  judgment  of  the 
father,  the  son  is  bound  by  any  provision  made  by  the  father, 
whether  satisfactory  or  not.^ 

§  38.    General   Rules   as  to    the   Form   of  Wills.  —  It  is  unimpor- 
tant to  notice,  in  this   connection,  the   various  solemnities  and 
formalities  required  in  different  countries  and  at  va-  c^^^,,,,,,,  j^^ 
rious  times  to  make  a  valid  will  or  testament,  because  ^f 33 1i'en!viiL 
this  matter  is  regulated  bv  statute  in  each  State,  as  and  -ip  car  11. 

-  1       .     .1        atlectiiig  wills. 

well  as  in  England,  and  will  be  considered  at  the 
proper  time.  But  it  is  necessary  to  bear  in  mind  the  distinction 
between  personal  and  real  property  in  connection  with  its  testa- 
mentary disposition,^  and  that,  while  at  common  law  real  estate 
could  not  be  devised,  the  power  of  making  a  will  of  personal 
property  existed  in  England  from  the  earliest  period  of  its  law.^ 
The  power  to  devise  lands,  after  the  Conquest,  was  first  granted, 
in  England,  by  the  statute  of  32  Henry  YIIL,  from  which  and 
that  of  29  Car.  II.  the  American  statutes  regulating  devises  are 
substantially  taken.^  Although  both  in  England  and  America 
the  formalities  required  to  vindicate  the  validity  of  wills  of  both 
real  and  personal  property  are  now  prescribed  by  statute,^  yet  the 
distinction  existing  between  legacies  (gifts  of  personal  property) 
and  devises  (of  real  estate)  at  the  time  of  the  enactment  of  the 
several  statutes  is  not  wholly  obliterated ;  and  the  common  law 

1  Jenkins  !-.  Stetson,  0  Allen,  128, 132;  death  of  the  promisor:  Stone  r.  Todd, 
McKeegan  v.  O'Neill,  22  S.  C.  454,  467,  49  N.  J.  L.  274,  280.  Numerous  cases  on 
citing  earlier  S.  C.  cases.  tliis  and  cognate  points  are  collected  by 

2  Parsell  v.  Stryker,  41  N.  Y.  480,  485;  the  reporter  in  a  note  to  the  case  of  I'tiu- 
Mauck  V.  Melton,  04  Ind.  414 :  Ptiugar  v.  gar  v.  Pultz,  43  N.  J.  Eq.  440. 

Pultz,  43  N.  J.  Eq.  440.  ^  Lee's  Appeal,  53  Conn.  303. 

s  Wallace  v.  Long,  105  Ind.  522,  citing  ^  Ante,  §  12  et  seq. 

and  commenting  on  numerous  cases.  ^  Wms.  Ex.  1. 

«  Schutt    V.   Missionary     Society,    41  ^  4  Kent  Comm.  504  et  seq. 

N.  J.  Eq.  115.     In  such  case  the  Statute  »  In  England,  by  the  statute  of  1  Vict, 

of  Limitations  begins   to  run  from  the  c  20. 


60  FORM,    EXECUTION,    AND    ATTESTATION    OF   WILLS.        §  38 

rules  on  the  subject  of  wills  remain  in  force  as  the  law  of  most 
States,  in  so  far  as  they  are  not  abrogated  by  American  legisla- 
tion. It  is  necessary,  therefore,  briefly  to  review  the  common 
law  m  this  respect,  before  considering  the  provisions  of  American 
statutes.^ 

At  common  law,^  no  particular  form  is  necessary  to  constitute 

a  valid  will  of  personalty ;  and  the  same  is  true  of  all  wills  in 

.   ,        America,  save  as  modified  by  statute.^     It  is  equally 

No  particular  '  ■         ,        ■,  i    •       -i 

form  required    valid  whether  Written  m  the   language  used  in  the 

at  comuioii  law    „  .  c-j  ±     •£    •  r        •  ^ 

or  under  Anier-  forum,  or  m  a  foreign  tongue ;  *  it  m  a  foreign  lan- 
ican  statutes,  g^^^ge,  it  should  bc  interpreted  by  persons  skilled 
Equally  valid    in  the  Tulcs  of  Interpreting   wills  in  the  country  in 

whetlier  in  .      .  •  k        »         -n      i    i  ^     i 

English  or  for-  whosc  language  it  is  written.^  A  will  duly  executed, 
eign  tongue.  ^^  .^^^  knowledge  of  its  contents,  is  valid,  though  never 
read  by  the  testator,*^  or  written  in  a  language  unknown  to  him.'^ 
Phraseology  Nor  is  it  important  that  its  language  or  phraseology 
uniuiportaut.  gl^Q^|(J  ]^q  technically  appropriate  to  its  testamentary 
character ;  it  is  sufficient  that  the  instrument,  however  irregular 
in  form  or  inartificial  in  expression,  disclose  the  intention  of  the 
testator  respecting  the  post-mortuary  disposition  of  his  property .^ 
Deed  or  in-  It  may  Operate  as  a  valid  will  although  drawn  in  the 
mTrria-e''.et^  f^mi  of  a  dced-poll  or  an  indenture,^  a  deed  of  gift,io  a 
tienaen?,  letter,   bond,"  marriage  settlements, ^2  letters,^"  drafts  on  bank- 

1  See  ante,  §  15  et  seq.,  on  the  influ-  160,  168;  Meck's  Appeal,  distinguishing 
ence  of  the  feudal-tenure  of  lands  on  the  between  a  contract  inter  vivos,  although 
American  law.  the  price  for  land  conveyed  was  payable 

2  Or  rather   under   the   ecclesiastical  after  the  grantor's  death,  and  a  testamen- 
law    of  England,   for    wills   of    personal  tary  disposition :  97  Pa.  St.  313,  316. 
estate  were  cognizable  exclusively  in  the  '^  Habergham  v.  Vincent,  2  Ves.  Jr.  204, 
spiritual  or  otlier  testamentary  courts.  231,  235;  Sperber  v.  Balster,  66  Ga.  317; 

3  "  Tiie  Legislature  has  power  to  pre-  Miller  v.  Holt,  68  Mo.  584,  587. 

scribe  the  formalities  to  be  observed  in         i^  Will   of  Belcher,  66  N.  C.  51,  53 ; 

the  execution  of  a  will;  and  by  so  doing  Jordan  v.  Jordan,  65  Ala.  801,  305,  and 

does  not  interfere  with  the  rights  of  an  Alabama  cases  cited  ;  Turner  v.  Scott,  51 

individual  to  dispose  of  his  property  as  Pa.  St.  126;  Miller  v.  Holt,  68  Mo.  584, 

he  sees  fit "  :  McCabe's  Estate,  68  Cal.  587. 
519.  n  Masterman  v,  Maberly,  2  Hagg.  235, 

*  Reynolds  v.   Kortwright,   18  Beav.  248. 
417,  426;  Caulfield  v.  Sullivan,  85  N.  Y.         12  Marnell  r.Walton  (T.  T  1796),  cited 

153.  in  Masterman  v.  Maberly,  2  Hagg.  247. 

5  Foubert  ?j.  De  Cresseron,  Show.  P.  C.  ^^  Leathers  v.  Greenacre,  53  Me.  661, 
194,  197  ;  Caulfield  v.  Sullivan,  supra.  565  ;  Fosselman  v.  Elder,  98  Pa.  St.  159, 

6  Worthington  v.  Klemm,  144  Mass.  161  (2  Am.  Prob.  Hep  541),  holding  that  a 
167.  letter  and  the  inscription  on  the  envelope, 

■?  Walter's  Will,  64  Wis.  487.  together  with  a  promissory  note  contained 

8  Fosselman  v.  Elder,  98  Pa.  St.  159,     therein,  constitute  a  valid  testamentary 


>8  GENERAL    RULES    AS   TO   THE    FORM   OF   WILLS. 


Gl 


power  of  attor- 
ney, may  con- 
stitute avalid 


ers,'  the  assignment  of  a  bond,  note,  lull,  or  stocks,  by  draft,  assign- 

.      1  o  •  .  1  i  111         nient,  ])roniis 

indorsenicnt,^  promissory  notes  and  notes  payable  by  sury  note,  or 
executors  and  administrators  to  evade  the  legacy  duty ,3 
a  power  of  attorney  ;  "*  it  may  be  in  part  a  deed  or  other 
contract,  and  in  i)art  a  will;''   or  it  may  be  intended 
to  operate  as  a  deed,  bond,  or  other  instrument  of  gift,  and  yet, 
though  inoperative  as  such,  be  valid  as  a  will,  if  it  provide  for  the 
disposition  of  property  after  death.^     It  must  not  be  understood, 
however,  that  any  instrument  is  operative  as  a  will  n  written  rini- 
which  shows  that  there  was  no  animus  testancli;''  nor  '"^  ^'^^'""  '• 
that,  because  it  cannot  operate  in  the  form  in  which  it  is  drawn, 
it  should /or  that  reason  be  operative  as  a  will  ;^  it  is  essential,  as 
already  stated ,9  that  the  instrument  be  made  to  depend  upon  the 
event  of  death  for  its  consummation  ;  for  where  a  pa-  ^^  ^^^^  ^^^^^ 
per  directs  a  benefit  to  be  conferred  inter  vivos,  with-  after  testator's 

,      death. 

out  expressed  or  implied  reference  to  the  grantor  s 
death,  it  cannot  be  established  as  testamentary. i*^ 


disposition  of  the  note  operating  as  a 
codicil  to  the  will ;  Wagner  v.  ^IcDonakl, 
2  Harr.  &  J.  346 ;  Morrell  v.  Dickey,  1 
Jolins.  Ch.  153;  Byers  v.  Hoppe,  61  Md. 
20G.  In  California  a  letter  and  copy  of 
a  deed  wore  together  admitted  as  consti- 
tuting a  good  holograpldc  will :  In  re 
Skerrett,  67  Cal.  585. 

1  Bartholomew  v.  Henley,  3  Phillim. 
317;  Schad's  Appeal,  88  Pa.  St.  HI, 
113. 

•2  Hunt  V.  Hunt,  4  N.  H.  4,34,  4-38; 
Musgrave  v.  Down  (T.  T.  1784),  and 
other  cases,  cited  by  Sir  John  Niclioll  in 
2  Hagg.  247  ;  Chaworth  v.  Beech,  4  Ves. 
550,  565. 

2  Longstaff  v.  Eennison,  1  Drew.  28, 
35.  In  Moore  v.  Stephens,  97  Ind.  271,  a 
pnper  reading  "  at  my  death,  my  estate 
shall  pay  to  A.  .  .  .  two  hundred  dollars," 
&c.,  was  held  testamentary  in  its  charac- 
ter, and  void  for  want  of  proper  attesta- 
tion ;  to  same  elFect,  Cover  v.  Stem,  67 
Md.  449. 

*  Rose  V.  Quick,  30  Pa.  St.  225. 

5  Robinson  v.  Schly,  6  Ga.  515,  529  ; 
Dudley  (;.  Mallery,  4  Ga.  52,  04 ;  Shep- 
herd V.  Nabors,  6  Ala.  631,  636;  Dawson 
V.  Dawson,  2  Strobh.  Eq.  .34,  38;  Castor 
V.  Jones,  86  Ind.  289 ;  Reed  v.  Hazleton, 
37  Kans.  321. 


6  Grain  v.  Grain,  21  Tex.  790,  796. 

7  Swett  I'.  Boardman,  1  Mass.  258,  262 
et  scq. ;  Combs  v.  Jolly,  3  N.  J.  Eq.  625, 
028. 

s  Cover  V.  Stem,  67  Md.  449  ;  Edwards 
V.  Smith,  35  Miss.  197,  200.  Williams,  in 
his  treatise  on  E.xecutors  and  Administra- 
tors, deduces  from  the  authorities  these 
rules :  1.  That  if  it  was  the  writer's  in- 
tention to  convey  benefits  which  would 
be  conveyed  if  the  paper  were  a  will,  and 
that  such  conveyance  should  take  effect 
only  in  case  of  his  death,  then,  whatever 
be  tiie  form,  it  may  be  admitted  to  pro- 
bate as  testamentary.  (Singleton  r. 
Bremar,  4  McCord,  12,  14.)  2.  That  in- 
struments in  their  terms  dispositive  are 
entitled  to  probate  unless  proved  not  to 
liave  been  executed  animo  teMancli,  while 
such  as  are  equivocal  in  character  must 
be  proved  to  have  been  executed  animo 
tfstondi:  Wms.  Ex.  [106],  and  authorities 
cited. 

9  See  ante,  §  36. 

1"  Wms.  Ex.  [107],  and  authorities ; 
Wareham  v.  Sellers.  9  Gill  &  J.  98; 
Wheeler  v.  Durant,  3  Rich.  Eq.  452,  454, 
citing  Dawson  v.  Dawson,  Rice  Eq.  243, 
and  Jaggers  v.  Estes,  2  Strobh.  Eq.  343; 
Symmes  v.  Arnold,  10  Ga.  506.  See  also 
Book  V.  Book,  104  Pa.  St.  240.     "  If  an 


62  FORM,   EXECUTION,    AND   ATTESTATION   OF   WILLS.       §  38 

May  be  writ-  A  will  maj  bc  written  or  printed,  or  partly  written 
[',"vrvc?o'r  and  partly  printed,  engraved,  or  lithographed.^  Blank 
lithographed.  ^j^r^^Q^  |eft  in  thc  wiU  do  not  necessarily  invalidate  it;^ 
but  it  is  better  to  avoid  them,  because  they  facilitate  fraudulent 
interlineations.^  The  writing  may  be  in  ink  or  in  pen- 
be  Vnpfnci'^^  cil ;  *  but  when  a  question  arises  whether  the  testator 
or  in  ink.  jntcndcd  the  paper  as  testamentary,  or  merely  prepar- 

atory to  a  more  formal  disposition,  the  material  with  which  it  is 
written  becomes  a  most  important  circumstance,-^  and  the  general 
presumption  and  probability  is  held  to  be,  that,  where  alterations 
are  made  in  pencil,  they  are  deliberative ;  where  in  ink,  they  are 
final  and  absolute.*'  A  will  written  on  a  slate  has  been  held  void ;  ^ 
An  entry  in  ac-  but  holographic  entries  in  a  diary ,»  or  an  entry  in 
count-book  or  account-book,  containing  a  full  disposition  of  the 

diary  may  be        "       -^^^^  ■>  r>  i 

a  valid  will.  property  and  appointment  of  an  executor,  dated  eight 
months  before  the  testatrix's  death,  subscribed  and  carefully  pre- 
served, was  admitted  to  probate,  although  it  contained  the  words, 
"  I  intend  this  as  a  sketch  of  my  will,  which  I  intend  making  on 
my  return  home."  ^  So  a  paper  written  and  subscribed  by  the 
testator,  with  the  intention  of  making  it  his  will,  thereby  be- 
comes his  will,  although  he  may  not  have  deemed  it  a  completed 
paper  by  reason  of  a  mistaken  notion  that  the  law  required 
a  witness.i*^  It  must  be  remembered  in  this  connection,  that 
before  the  enactment  of  the  Wills  Act  (St.  1  Vict.  c.  26)  wills 

instrument    passes    a    present   interest,  standing  blank    spaces    left  for   names 

although  the  right  to  its  possession  and  of  legatees,  but  the  majority  held  that 

enjoyment   may  not   accrue   until   some  they  indicated  that  the  voluntas  testandi 

future  time,  it  is  a  deed  or  contract ;  but  was   not  complete  :    4    Harr.    &  J.    156, 

if  the  instrument  does  not  pass  an  interest  172. 

or  right  until  the  death  of  the  maker,  it  *  Myers  v.  Vanderbelt,  84  Pa.  St.  510, 

is  a  will  or  testamentary  paper":  Reed  f.  513;  Philbrick  i'.  Spangler,  15La.  An.  46. 
Hazleton,  37    Kans.  321,  325;    Cover  v.  ^  Patterson  f.  English,  71  Pa.  St.  454  ; 

Stem,  67  Md.  449.  Kell  v.  Charmer,  23  Beav.  195. 

1  in    the    Goods    of    Wotton,   L.   R.  ^  in  the  Goods  of  Adams,  L.  R.  2  P.  & 

3  P.  &  D.    159,   160;  1  Jarm.  on  Wills,  D.  367,  368;  In  the  Goods  of  Hall,  L.  R. 

*18.  2  P.  &  D.  256,  257. 

2  Corneby  v.  Gibbons,  1  Rob.  705,  708  ;  '  Reed  i-.  Woodward,  11  Phila.  541. 
In  the  Goods  of  Kirby,  1  Rob.  709.                     ^  Although  made  at  different  times: 

3  Where  there  was  unnecessary  and  Reagan  »•.  Stanley,  11  Lea,  316. 
unreasonable  space  between  the  conclu-  ^  Hattatt  v.  Hattatt,  4  Hagg.  211. 
sionof  the  will  and  the  testator's  signa-  ^o  Toebbe  v.  Williams,  80  Ky.  661. 
ture,  it  has  been  held  not  legally  executed :  This  principle  has,  of  course,  validity  in 
Soward  v.  Soward,  1  Duv.  126, 134.  See  those  States  only  in  which  holographic 
also  Tilghman  v.  Steuart,  in  which  two  wills  are  held  valid  without  being  at- 
of  the  judges  held  the  will  valid,  notwith-  tested. 


§  39  THE   SIGNATURE.  63 

of  personal  estate  in  England  needed  neither  witnesses  to  their 
publication,^  nor  signature,-  nor  solemnity  of  any  kind.'^ 

§  39.  The  Signature.  —  Under  the  English  Statute  of  Frauds 
all  devises  of  lands  and  tenements  were  required  to  be  in  writing, 
and   signed   by  the  party  devising  the   same,    or   by  „,.,, 

•^  .  .  .  .  ^^  '"  "T'^t  be 

some  person  in  his  presence  and  by  his  express  direc-  si^'ncd  by  tes- 
tion.  This  provision  is  incorporated  into  the  statutes 
regulating  wills  in  nearly  all  the  States,*  and  a  declaration  is 
added  in  many  of  them,  that  unless  so  signed  no  will  shall  be 
valid.  In  Pennsylvania  an  exception  is  allowed  where  the  testa- 
tor is  prevented  from  either  signing  or  directing  some  other  person 
to  sign  for  him ;  ^  and  it  is  there  held  that,  if  a  will  be  put  in 
writing  during  the  testator's  lifetime,  according  to  his  directions, 
it  will  be  held  good  without  his  signature,  upon  proof  by  two 
competent  witnesses  that  he  was  })revcnted  from  signing  under 
the  circumstances  mentioned  in  the  statute.^ 

The  making  of  a  mark  by  the  testator  was  held  suflficient  as  a 
signature  under  the  Statute  of  Frauds,  without  reference  to  the 
question  whether  he  could  write  at  the  time  ; "  it  is  m^  ^-,3^1^  is  a 
held  equally  sufficient  under  the  Wills  Act,^  and  in  go^-t' signature. 
the  several  States.^    The  mark   of   the   testator  has  been   held 
a  proper  signature,  although  the  name  was  improperly  written  by 
the  scrivener  ;  ^*^  a  stamp,  which  had  been  used  by  the  stamp  issuffi- 
testator  in  place  of  his  signature  to  letters  and  other  *="^"'^- 
documents,  was  held  a  sufficient  execution  by  mark.^^  Seal  not  usu- 
But  a  seal  cannot  be  used  in  place  of  a  signature,^^  ^  -^  necessary. 

1  Custody  is   a   sufficient   publication  :  ^  In  the  Goods  of  Bryce,  2  Curt.  325, 

Miller  v.  Brown,  2  Hagg  209,  211.  326,  in  which  the  name  of  the  testatrix 

'■^  Salmon  r.  Haj's.  4  Hagg.  382,  385  appeared  in  no  part  of  the  will. 

3  Wms.  Ex.  [68]  et  sec/.  9  Except    in    Pennsylvania,    for    the 

*  In    Georgia   both  real  and    personal  reason  stated  supra. 

property  may  pass  by  nuncupative  will :  ^^  In  the  Goods  of  Douce,  2  Sw.  &  Tr. 

Code,  1882,  §  2482.  593,  in  which  the  testator's  name,  Thomts 

"  Bright.  Purd.  Dig.  1883.  p.  1709,  §  fi.  Douce,    was    written    throughout    John 

6  Blocher  v.  Hostetter,  2  Gr.  Cas.  288,  Douce  ;   In  tlie  Goods  of  Clarke,  where 

291.     The  courts  in   Pennsylvania  hold  the  testatrix's  maiden  name.  Barrel!,  had 

proponents  to  a  very  strict  compliance  been  written  instead  of  the  name  stie  bore 

with  the  literal  requirements  of  the  statute  after  her  marringe,  Clarke:    1  8w.  «&  Tr. 

in  this  respect ;  Knoff's  Appeal,  26  Pa.  St.  22  ;    In  tlie  Goods  of  Glover,  where  the 

219 ;  Showers  v.  Showers,  27  Pa.  St.  485,  testatrix  wrote  the  name  she  bore  of  a 

491  ;  Grabill  v.  Barr,  5  Pa    St.  441,  445;  previous  husband  :  5  Notes  of  Cas.  553; 

Greenough  v.  Grcenough,  11  Pa.  St.  489,  Bailey  ;•   Bailey,  35  Ala.  687,  690. 

496  ;  Snyder  v.  Bull,  17  Pa.  St.  54,  60.  "  Jenkins  r.  Gaisford,  3  Sw.&Tr.  93,96. 

"  Baker  v    Dening,  8  Ad.  &  El.  04,  97  12  Smith    v    Evans,    1    Wils.   313       In 

elscq  Nevada  (Gen.  St.  1885,  §  3002)  and  Now 


64  FORM,    EXECUTION,    AND    ATTESTATION    OF    WILLS.         §  39 

althoiigli  it  was  at  one  time  so  held  under  the  Statute  of  Frauds. 
Nor  is  a  seal  necessary,  although    mentioned  in   the   testatum 

clause.^ 

In  the  statutes  of  Arkansas,^  California,^  Kansas,*  Kentucky,^ 

Minnesota,^  New  York,"  Ohio,^  and  Pennsylvania,^  it  is  provided, 

that  the  will  shall  be  signed  "at  the  end  thereof";  a 

Signature  _ 

must,  ill  some     provision  evidently  designed  to  do  away  with  the  rule 

States,  beat  .  i       Oi    j  p    ^^  i       ji     j_  j_i 

the  end  of  the  of  constructiou  Under  the  fetatute  or  1' rands,  tliat  the 
name  of  the  testator  written  in  the  commencement, — 
thus,  "  I,  A.  B.,  do  make,  &c.,"  —  or  in  any  other  part  of  the 
will,  was  a  sufficient  signature.'^  It  is  held,  under  these  statutes, 
that  any  disposition,  following  under  or  after  the  testator's  signa- 
ture, of  the  property  mentioned  in  the  will,  not  again  signed  by 
the  testator,  invalidates  the  whole  instrument  as  a  will.^^  But 
where  the  portion  preceding  the  signature  constitutes  a  complete 
will,  it  may  be  admitted  to  probate. ^^  Signing  below  the  attesta- 
tion clause,^'^  or  before  the  date,^*  or  after  a  blank  space,^^  does 
Signature  suffi-  "ot  invalidate  the  will.  In  the  other  States,  where  the 
cient,  in  other    position  of  the  signature  is  not  fixed  by  the  statute, 

states,  m  any       i  o  ./  ' 

part  of  the  will,  the  rulc  adopted  in  England  under  the  Statute  of 
Frauds  is  still  generally  observed :  where  every  part  of  the  will 
is  written  by  the  testator  himself,  or  acknowledged  by  him  to  the 
attesting  witnesses,  the  name  appearing  in  the  body,  or  as  the 

Hampshire  (Gen.  L.  1878,  p.  455,  §  6)  the  dum,  stating  his  reasons  for  niakinsr  the 

statute  requires  the  testator  to  atiix  his  will,  after  his  signature),  413  ;  lU^  O'Neil, 

seal  to  the  will,  in  addition  to  his  signa-  27   Hun,   180,   183.     But  in   Baker' s  Ap- 

ture.  peal,  107  Pa.  St.  381,  it  is  held  that  a  will 

^  Ketchum  v.  Stearns,  8  Mo.  App.  66  ;  need  not  be  .-igned  at  the  end  in  point  of 

the  unnecessary  addition  of  a  seal  does  space,  if  so  in  point  of  fact, 

not  change  the  essential  character  of  the  '-  Estate    of    McCuUough,     Myr.    76. 

instrument:  Wuesthoff  v.  Germania  Ins.  But  "  the  court  would  not  be  justified  in 

Co.,  107  N.  Y.  580,  592.  fi.xing  upon  a  signature  in  the  midst  of 

-  Dig.  1884,  §  6492.  what  the  testator  intended  as  iiis  will,  and 

3  Civ.  Code,  §  1276.  treating  it  as  an  execution  of  all  that  pre- 

4  Dass.  St.  1885,  ch.  117,  §  2.  ceded,  and  granting  probate  of  so  much 
6  Jones  V.  Jones,  3  Mete.  (Ky.)  266,  268.  of  the  will  to  the  disregard  of  the  remain- 
E  St.  1878,  p.  568,  §  5.  der  "  :  Margary  v.  Kobinson,  12  Prob. 
1  3  Banks  &  Br.  Rev.  St.,  7th  ed.,  p.  Div.  8,  13,   quoting  from   Sweetland   v. 

2285,  §  40.  Sweetland,  4  Sw.  &  Tr.  6. 

8  Rev.  St.  1880,  §  5916.  ^"  Cohen's  Will,  Tuck.  286;  Younger 

9  Bright.  Purd.  Dig.  1883,  p.  1709,  §  6.     v.  Duffie,  94  N.  Y.  635. 

w  1  Jarm.  on  Wills,  *105.  "  Flood  v.  Pragoff,  79  Ky.  G07. 

"  Wineland's  Appeal,  12  Atl.  R.  (Pa.)  i^  Nothing  intervening  between  the  in- 
801 ;  Glancey  v.  Glancey,  17  Oh.  St.  134;  strument  and  signature  :  Gilnian  v.  Gil- 
Hays  V.  Harden,  6  Pa.  St.  409  (although  man,  1  Redf.  354,  -365;  In  re  Collins,  5 
the  testator  only  appended  a  memoran-  Redf.  20,  25. 


§  39  THE    SIGNATURE.  65 

usual  exordium,  — "I,  A.  !>.,  do  make,"  &c.,  —  is  a  sufficient  sij^n- 
ing,^  if  the  testator  so  considered  it.^  Dut  it  has  also  been  held, 
where  the  will  was  not  written  nor  subscribed  by  the  testator, 
that  the  name  in  the  exordium  does  not  satisfy  the  statute  re- 
quiring the  will  to  be  signed.^  Where  the  will  is  written  on 
separate  pieces  or  sheets  of  paper,  not  physically  connected,  it  is 
sufficient  for  the  probate  thereof  that  it  be  signed  on  one  ol 
them,  if  it  appear  by  the  contents,  or  by  other  proof,  that  the 
testator  included  all  of  them  as  constituting  the  will  when  lie 
signed.*  But  words  of  reference  will  not  suffice  to  incorporate 
into  it  the  contents  of  an  extraneous  paper,  unless  it  can  be 
clearly  shown  that,  at  the  time  su6h  will  was  executed,  such  paper 
was  actually  in  existence.^ 

By  the  terms  of  the  statutes  in  all  the  States,  it  is  believed, 
except  New  Jersey  and  New  York,  the  signature  may  be  written 
by  another  person,  in  the  presence  and  by  the  express  gip,„jjt„re  may 
direction  of  the  testator.    It  is  held  that  the  testator's  be  written  by" 

another  person, 

hand  mav  be  guided  to  make  the  mark,  or  write  his  or  hand  of  tes- 

-  .  T  1       •  J.  1        tator  guided. 

name,  and  that  this  constitutes  a  valid  signature  by 
the  testator  ;  ^  and  the  acknowledgment  of  the  execution  of  the 
instrument  as  a  will  is  a  sufficient  direction,  although  signed  by 
another.^  But  if  the  testator  direct  another  person  to  sign  for 
him,  and  intends  to  affix  his  mark  in  completion  of  the  signature, 
the  will  is  not  properly  signed  unless  such  mark  is  made;^  and 
where  the  statute  requires  the  person  who  writes  the  testator's 
name  to  add  his  own  as  a  witness,  and  to  state  that  he  wrote  the 
testator's  name  at  his  request,  as  it  does  in  some  of  the  States,^ 

1  Armstrong    v.    Armstrong,    29    Ala.  cited  in  1  Show.  69;  Baker's  Appeal,  107 

538,   540,  citing  English   and   American  Pa.  St.  .381. 

authorities;  Allen  v.  Everett,  12  B.  Mon.  5  Webb  v.  Day,  2  Dem.  459,  461. 

371,  378;   Adams  v.  Field,   21    Vt.  256,  ?  Vandruff  r.  Rinehart,  29  Pa.  St.  2-32, 

266.  2.34  ;  Cozzens's  Will,  61  Pa.  St.  196,  201  : 

■•2  Miles's  Will,  4  Dana,  1,  2 ;  Martin  Stevens  v.  Vancleve,  4  Wash.  C.  C  26J. 

I'.   Hamlin,   4   Strobh.  188,  190 ;   Roy  v.  269 ;  Van  Hanswyck  v.  Wiese,  44  Barb 

Roy,  16  (Iratt.  418  (held  insufficient  under  494,  497  ;  McMechen   v.  McMechen,    17 

the  evidence).  W.  Va.  683,  711. 

3  Catlett  V.  Catlett,  55  Mo.  330,  3.39  ^  Herbert  v.  Berrier,  81  Ind.  1. 

et  seq.  8  Main  v.  Ryder,  84  Pa.  St.  217,  223. 

*  Martin  v.   Hamlin,  4   Strobh.    188;  ^  For  instance,  in  Arkansas  (Dig.  1884, 

Ela  V.  Edwards,  16  Gray,  91.  99,    citing  §  649.3)  ;  California  (Code.  §  1-J78)  ;  New 

Bond  V.   Seawell,  3   Burr.  1773,  Gass  v.  York    (3  Banks   &    Bro.   Rev.    St.   1882, 

Gass.  3  Humph.  278,  and  Wikoffs  Ap-  p.  2286,  §  41)  ;   and  Oregon  (Code,  1887, 

peal,  15  Pa.  St.  281,  290 ;  Essex's  case,  §  3070). 
VOL.  I. —  5 


66  FORM,    EXECCTTION',    AND    ATTESTATION   OF   WILLS.        §  40 

the  will  is  invalid  if  this  is  omitted,  although  the  testator  affix  his 
mark  in  person.^ 

In  New  Jersey  and  New  York  it  is  held  that  the  statute 
Except  in  requires  the  signature  to  be  made  by  the  testator 
anTNew^^  in  pcrsou,  either  by  writing  his  name,  or  making  a 
York.  mark,  or  acknowledging  it  to  be  his  signature.^ 

§  40.  Attestation. —  The  English  statute  of  frauds  required  the 
attestation  of  wills  by  "  three  or  four  credible  witnesses,"  by  sub- 
scribing the  same  in  the  presence  of  the  testator.  A 
attesting  similar  provision  is  incorporated  into  the  statutes  of 
m.der'En--  all  the  States,  varying,  however,  as  to  the  number  of 
lish  statute,  ^itucsscs  required,  and  as  to  the  further  requirement 
thnt  the  witnesses  shall  subscribe  "  in  the  presence  of  each  other." 
Wills  devising  real  estate  are  required  to  be  attested  by  "  two  or 
more,"  or  "  at  least  two  "  witnesses,  in  Alabama,^  Ar- 
qulringtt  kansas,*  California,'^  Colorado,^  Delaware,'^  Illinois,^  In- 
least  two.  (jiana,9  Iowa,io  Kansas,ii  Kentucky ,i^  Michigan,!^  Minne- 
sota,''* Mississippi,^^  Missouri,i^  Nebraska,^'  Nevada,'^  New  Jersey ,1^ 
New  York,20  North  Carolina,^!  Ohio,^^  Oregon,^^  Pennsylvania,^* 
Rhode  Island,25  Tennessee,^^  Texas,^'  Virginiaj'-^^  West  Virginia,^^ 

1  Northcutt  V.  Northcutt,  20  Mo.  266  "  Dassler's  St.  1885,  ch.  117,  §  2. 

(this  and  some  other  Missouri  cases  hold-  ^^  Qgn_  gt.  1883,  p.  8.32. 

ing  the  same  doctrine  were  conditioned  i^  How.  St.  1882,  §  5789. 

by  a  statute  now  repealed) ;  Will  of  Cor-  i*  St.  1878,  p.  568,  §  5. 

nelius,  14  Ark.  675,  683  ''  Rev.  Code,  1880,  §  1262. 

2  In  re  McElwaine,  18  N.  J.  Eq.  499,  502 ;  16  Rev.  St.  1879,  §  3962. 

Robyns  v.  Coryell,   27   Barb.   556,  558 ;  "  Comp.  St.  1885,  p.  300,  §  127. 

Chaffee  v.  Baptist  Missionary  Convention,  ^8  Rgv.  St.  1885,  §  3002. 

10  Pai.  85,  91.     See  remarks  of  Wash-  i^  Rev.  1877,  p.  1247,  §  22. 

ington,   J.,   in   Stevens    v.    Vancleve,   4  ^n  3  Banks  &  Br.  Rev.  St.  (7th  ed.), 

Wash.   262,  269.      Unless  the   mark  be  p.  2285,  §  40. 

made  under  decedent's  direction  and  af-  ^^  Code  of  1883,  §  2136. 

tervvards  acknowledged  as  his  signature  :  '■^^  Rev.  St.  1880,  §  5916. 

Knapp  V.  ReiUy,  3  Dem.  427,  431,  and  23  Code,  1887,  §  3069. 

New  York  cases  cited.  '^*  Bright.   Purd.   Dig.   1883,   p.   1709, 

3  Code,  1886,  §  1966.  §   6.     But   the   witnesses   in   this    State 

*  Dig.  1884,  §  6492.  are  not  required   to   subscribe  the  will. 

5  Civ.  Code,  §  1276.  Frew    v.   Clarke,   80   Pa.    St.    170,    178, 

6  Gen.  St.  1883,  §  3482.  and  numerous  Pennsylvania  cases  there 
'  Rev.  Code,  1874,  p.  508.  cited. 

8  St.  &  Curt.  St.  1885,  p.  2466,  §  2.    A         ^^  Pub.  St.  1882,  p.  471,  §  4. 
writing  not  attested  bv  witnesses  is  not         ^6  Code,  1884,  §  3003. 

a   will :    Highland  v.  Highland,  109  III.         27  Pag^h.  Dig.  187-5,  §  5361. 
366,  374.  -8  Code,  1887,  §  2514. 

9  Rev.  1881,  §  2576.  29  Code,  1887,  ch.  77,  §  3. 
w  Laws,  1886,  §  2326. 


§  40  ATTESTATION,  67 

and  Wisconsin ;  ^   by  three   or  more   in   Connecticut,^   g^^^^^^  ^^_ 
Florida,^  Geortna,''  Maine,^  Massachusetts,*^  New  Hamp-   quiring  at 

o  o  -1  r         I        1      "^^^^^  three. 

sliire,'  South  Carolina,^  and  Vermont.^  In  Maryland 
tlie  languaj^e  of  the  En,i>lisli  Statute  of  Frauds,  "  three  or  four," 
is  retained.^*'  In  Louisiana  the  forms  of  the  civil  law  are  followed 
to  some  extent,  and  three  resident  or  five  non-resident  witnesses 
are  required  for  nuncupative  or"  open"  testaments,  while  a  "  mys- 
tic," "secret,"  or  "  closed"  testament  must  be  delivered  to  a  no- 
tary public  in  a  sealed  envelope,  and  attested  by  seven  witnesses, 
who,  tofjether  with  the  notary  and  the  testator,  are  required  to 
sign  the  "  act  of  superscription  "  drawn  up  by  the  notary,  after 
the  declaration  by  the  testator,  in  the  i)rescnce  of  the  notary  and 
witnesses,  that  the  enclosed  paper  contains  his  testament.^^ 

With  the  exception  of  Arkansas,^^  and  New  York,^'^  whose  stat- 
utes are  held  not  to  require  attestation  by  signinyj  in  the  presence 
of  the  testator,  and  of  Fennsylvania,^'*  where  it  is  held  Attesting 
that  the  witnesses  are  not  required  to  subscribe  their  witnesses 

^  .       subscribe  m 

names  at  all,  and  with  the  exception  of  holographic  presence  of 
wills,  authorized  in  some  of  the  States  without  attesta- 
tion,^^ the  attesting  witnesses  are  required  to  subscribe  the  will  in 
the  presence  of  the  testator.  It  seems  to  be  unnecessary  to  cite 
any  of  the  numerous  cases  so  holding.^^  To  constitute  "  pres- 
ence "  in  the  sense  of  the  English  Statute  of  Frauds  and  of  the 
American  statutes  on  the  subject  of  wills,  it  is  essential  that  the 
testator  should  be  mentally  capable  of  recognizing  the  act  which 
is  being  performed  before  him ;  for  if  this  power  be  wanting,  his 
corporeal  presence  would  not  suffice.^^     It  is  not  essential  that  the 

1  Rev.  St.  1878,  §  2282.  '«  It  is  not  enou<jh   that  the  witness 

2  Gen.  St.  1888,  §  538.  subsequently  acknowledges  his  signature 
^  McClell.  Dig.  1881,  p.  985.  in  the  testator's  presence,  if  affixed  in  his 

4  Code,  1882,  §  2414.  absence  :  Pawtucket  v.  Ballon,  15  R.  I. 

5  Rev.  St.  1883,  p.  608,  §  1.  58;  Chase  v.  Kittredge,  11  Allen,  49. 

«  Pub.  St.  1882,  p.  747,  §  1.  "  "  Thus,  if  the  testator,  after  having 

■^  Gen.  L.  1878,  p.  455,  §  6.  signed  and  published   his  will,   and   he- 

8  Rev.  St.  1882,  §  1854.  fore  the  witnesses  have  subscribed  thoir 

9  Rev.  L.  1880,  §  2042.  names,  falls  into  a  state  of  insensibility 
1"  Rev.  Code,  1878,  p.  420,  §  4.  (whether  permanent  or  temporary),  the 

11  Code,  art.  1574  ft  seq.  attestation  is  insufficient  " :   1  Jarm.   on 

12  Rogers  v.  Diamond,  13  Ark.  474,  486;     Wills,  *87,  citing  Right  v.  Price,  1  Dougl. 
Abraham  v.  Wilkins,  17  Ark.  292,  325.         241,  and  other  English  authorities.     "It 

1'^  Lyon  V.   Smith,  11   Barb.  124,126;  would  seem  that  a  lunatic  or  person  sleep- 

Ruddon  v.  McDonald,  1  Bradf.  352.  ing  could   not  be   considered   present  "  : 

n  Frew  V.  Clarke,  80  Pa.  St.  170.  Lacy,  J.,  in  Baldwin  v.  Baldwin,  81  Va. 

15  As  to  which  see  post,  §  43.  405,  410. 


68 


FORM,    EXECUTION,    AND    ATTESTATION   OF   WILLS. 


40 


testator  should  actually  see  the  witnesses  attest  the  will ;  but  he 
must  be  in  such  a  situation  that  he  might  see,  and  it  will  then  be 
presumed  that  he  did  see.^  Tlie  design  of  the  statute  is  said  to 
be  to  prevent  the  substitution  of  a  surreptitious  will.^ 

In  Connecticut,^  Louisiana,*  South  Carolina,^  and  Vermont,^  the 
statute  requires  the  attesting  witnesses  to  subscribe,  not  only  in 
nut  in  most  ^^®  presence  of  the  testator,  but  also  of  each  other ; 
States  not  ne-    and  in  Ncw  Jersey  the  statute  requiring  publication  in 

ce^sanly  in  the  "^  ,  i  o  i 

presence  of  the  prescucc  of  two  witucsscs  "  present  at  the  same 
time,  who  shall  subscribe  their  names  thereto  as  wit- 
nesses in  presence  of  the  testator,"  is  held  to  require  that  all  shall 
be  together  when  the  declaration  is  made.'  The  same  construc- 
tion has  been  given  to  the  word  "  presence  "  in  respect  of  the 
witnesses  between  themselves,  as  to  that  of  the  testator  ;^  and  in 
the  absence  of  a  statutory  provision  to  that  effect  it  is  not  neces- 
sary that  they  shoiild  sign  in  each  other's  presence.^  In  the 
absence  of  clear  proof  that  the  witness  or  witnesses  signed  before 
the  signing  of  the  testator,  it  should  be  presumed  that  the  testa- 
tor signed  first.^*^ 

It  is  required  by  statute  in  some  States  that  the.  subscription 


1  "  An  attestation  made  in  the  same 
room  with  the  testator  is  prima  facie 
good  ;  and  where  the  attestation  is  shown 
to  liave  taken  place  in  a  diflerent  apart- 
ment, it  is  prima  facie  had  "  :  Watson  v. 
Pipes,  .32  Miss.  451,  467  ft  seq.  ;  see  also 
Edelen  v.  Hardey,  7  Harr.  &  J.  61,  67; 
Grflham  v.  Graham,  10  Ired.  L.  219,  221  ; 
Wriffht  V.  Lewis,  5  Rich.  212,  217 ;  Lamb 
V.  Girtman,  33  Ga.  289,  291,  298  ;  Spaul- 
dins  V.  Gibbons,  5  Redf.  316,  319;  Allen's 
Will,  25  Minn.  39;  Riggs  v.  Riggs,  135 
Mass.  2.38;  Etchison  v.  Etchison,  53  Md. 
348,  357  ;  Maynard  v.  Vinton,  59  Mich. 
139;  Baldwin  v.  Baldwin,  81  Va.  405; 
Ayers  v.  Ayers,  43  N.  J.  Eq.  565. 

2  Hill  V.  Barge,  12  Ala.  687,  696 ;  Cra- 
vens V.  Faulconer,  28  Mo.  19,  21 ;  Ambre 
V.  Weishaar,  74  111.  109,  113;  Nock  v. 
Nock,  10  Gratt.  106,  112;  Swift  v.  Wiley,  1 
B.  Mon.  114,  117,  distinguishing  between 
the  "  attesting  "  and  the  "  subscribing  "  of 
a  will ;  Reynolds  v.  Reynolds,  1  Speers, 
253,  255  :  Ayers  v.  Ayers,  43  N.  J.  Eq.  565. 

3  Gen.  St.  1875,  p.  369,  §  2.  No  longer 
necessary  by  St.  of  1888,  §  538. 

*  Code,  art.  1681, 1584. 


5  Rev.  St.  1882,  §  1854. 

6  Rev.  L.  1880,  §  2042. 

■^  Ludlow  V.  Ludlow,  36  N.  J.  Eq.  597, 
599;  Ayers  v.  Ayers,  43  N,  J.  Eq.  565, 
569. 

*  "  It  is  sufficient  if  the  testator  and 
witnesses  are  all  in  the  same  room  wlien 
the  signatures  of  all  the  witnesses  are 
made,  and  are  there  for  the  purpose  of 
taking  part  in  the  execution  of  the  will, 
and  have  an  opportunity  to  see  all  the 
witnesses  sign  the  will,  if  they  clioose  to 
turn  their  eyes  in  that  direction  "  :  sylla- 
bus in  Blanchard  i'.  Blanchard,  32  Vt.  62. 

3  Cravens  v.  Faulconer,  28  Mo.  19,  21 ; 
Parramore  v.  Taylor,  11  Gratt.  220,  249  ; 
Abraham  v.  Wilkins,  17  Ark.  292,  324 
et  seq. ;  Gaylor's  Appeal,  43  Conn.  82,  84 
et  seq. ;  Hoysrodt  v.  Kingman,  22  N.  Y. 
372,  373;  Dewey  v.  Dewey,  1  Mete. 
(Mass.)  349,  351  ;  Flinn  v.  Owen,  58  III. 
Ill,  114;  Hoffman  v.  Hoffman,  26  Ala. 
535,  546;  Moore  v.  Spier,  80  Ala.  129, 
1.33;  Smith's  Will,  52  Wis.  543,  547; 
Welch  V.  Adams,  63  N.  H.  344  ;  Johnson 
V.  Johnson,  106  Ind.  475. 

10  Allen  V.  Griffin,  69  Wis.  529,  533. 


Testator  must 
sif^ii  or  ac- 
knowledge 
sitriiature  in 


§  40  ATTESTATION.  69 

of  the  attesting  witnesses,  like  that  of  the  testator,  be  at  the  end 
of  the  instrument.     Where  such  is  the  law,  the  will 
becomes  void   if  the  testator,  after  proper  signature  ^^^A^^l^anv 
and  attestation,  adds  a  disuosin";  clause,  which  is  again  P'^";' "f  t''«  w'l, 

'  ID'  o  unless  statute 

signed  by  him,  but  not  attested.'     In  the  absence  of  requires  it  to  be 

, .  .  .      .  ,  at  the  end. 

statutory  direction,  it  is  not  material  m  what  part  of 
a  will  the  subscribing  witnesses   sign  their  names,  if  it  is  done 
after  the  subscription  and  acknowledgment  by  the  testator,  and 
with  the  purpose  of  attesting  it  as  subscribing  witnesses.^ 

Under  the  English  Statute  of  Frauds  it  was  held  sufficient  that 
tiie  witnesses  subscribed  their  names  as  such,  at  the  testator's 
request,  without  seeing  his  signature  or  being  informed 
of  the  nature  of  the  instrument.^  But  by  the  Wills 
Act,  and  under  American  statutes  generally,  it  is 
required  that  the  testator  shall  sign,  or  acknowledge  pre^^enceof 

_  '  °    '  ®      witnesses. 

his  signature,  in  presence  of  the  attesting  witnesses ; 
and  it  is  held  in  England  that  where  the  attesting  witnesses  are 
unable  to  see  the  signature,  and  the  testator  gives  no  explanation 
of  the  instrument,  the  signature  is  not  properly  acknowledged.* 

In  most  of  the  States  they  must  know,  also,  that  he  signed  the 
•instrument  as  and  for  his  last  will  ;  to  which  end  it  is  enacted  by 
statute  in  Arkansas,^  California,*'  Georgia,'^  Nebraska,  New  Jersey,^ 
and  New  York,^  that,  in  addition  to  the  acknowledg-  And  declare 
ment  of  his   signature,  the  testator  must  publish  or  characteroZ 
declare  in  the  presence  of  the  attesting  witnesses  that  instrument. 
the  instrument  by  him    executed   is  intended  as  his  will.^*^     In 

1  Hewitt  V.  Hewitt,  5  Redf.  271,  274,  e  Civ.  Code,  §  1276. 

afBrmed  in  Hewitt's  Will,  91  N.  Y.  261 ;  ^  But  acknowledgment  of  the  signa- 

Re  Case,  4  Dem.  124.  ture  is  a  sufficient  publication  :  Webb  v. 

-  Fowler  o.  Stagner,  55  Tex.  393, 400 ;  Fleming,  30  Ga.  808. 

Roberts  v.  Phillips,  4  El.  &  Bl.  450,  453 ;  «  Rev.  1877,  p.  1247,  §  22. 

Peake  I'.  Jenkins,  ><0  Va.  293, 290;  Franks  9  3  Banks  &  Bro.  Rev.  St.  (7th  ed.)  p. 

V.  Cliapman,  64  Tex.  159.  2285,  §  40. 

^  Wms.  Ex.  [87],  with  English  author-  i*  It  is  held  under  these  statutes,  that 

ities.  such  publication  may  be  made  sponta- 

*  Goods  of  Hammond,  3  Sw.  &  Tr.  90,  neously,  or  by  answering  questions  put 

92.     See  Lewis  v.  Lewis,  13  Barb.  17,  and  by  the  scrivener  or  others,  or  in  any  way, 

English  cases  there  cited  and  commented  by  signs  or  gestures,  or  circumstances, 

on.     In   America,   by   the   terms  of  the  conmiunicating  to  the  witnesses  tliat  lie  so 

statutes  in  many  States,  it  is  necessary  understands  it :  Rogers  v.   Diamond,  13 

that  the  attesting  witnesses  should  either  Ark.  474  ;  Denny  v.  Pinney,  12  Atl.  Rep. 

see  the  testator  sign  the  instrument,  or  (Vt.)  108,  110;  Briiickerhoof  v.  Remsen, 

that  he  should  acknowledge  his  signature  8  Pni.  488,  497  et  seq. ;  Lewis  r.   Lewis, 

to  them.  13  Barb.  17,  24;  Tunison  v.  Tunison.  4 

5  Dig.  1884,  §  6492.  Bradf.   138,  144;  McKinley  v.  Lamb,  64 


70 


FORM,   EXECUTION,   AND   ATTESTATION   OF   WILLS. 


§40 


Attesting  wit-  tliGSG  and  other  States  it  is  held  that  the  attesting  wit- 
nesses sign  «Mi-  .,  ,1  •  •  J.J.  J.  T  ^ 
mo  attestandi.    ncsscs  uiust  subscFibe  their  names  ammo  attestandi,'^ 

but  that  no  affirmative  declaration  to  that  end  is  necessary ;  any 
indication  by  the  testator  to  the  witnesses  of  his  knowledge  that 
the  instrument  to  be  attested  by  them  is  meant  for  liis  last  will, 
is  sufficient.2  In  Georgia,^  Illinois,*  Indiana,^  lowa,^  Massachu- 
setts,^  South  Carolina,^  and  Virginia,^  it  is  held  that  publication 
to  the  witnesses  is  not  necessary  to  the  validity  of  the  will.  The 
rule  in  England,  both  before ^^  and  after"  the  statute  of  1  Vict, 
c.  26,  is  clearly  established,  that  the  witnesses  need  not  know  the 
character  of  the  paper  attested  by  them ;  the  theory  being  that 
the  attestation  was  to  the  signature,  not  to  the  documeyit  pro- 
posed as  a  will.  The  same  doctrine  is  held  in  Connecticut,^^ 
Georgia,i3  Indiana,!"'  lowa,!^  Maine,!^  Maryland, i"  Minnesota,!^ 
Pennsylvania,!^  South  Carolina,^^  Virginia,^!  and  Wisconsin.^^ 


Barb.  199,203  et  seq. ;  Compton  v.  Mitton, 
12  N.  J.  L.  70,  73  et  seq. ;  Ludlow  v.  Lud- 
low, 36  N.  J.  Eq.  597;  especially  when 
written  by  the  testatrix  :  Re  Beckett,  103 
N.  Y.  167 ;  and  it  may  be  made  on  differ- 
ent occasions  and  when  tlie  witnesses  are 
apart  from  each  other  :  Barry  v.  Brown 
2  Deni.  309 ;  but  the  testamentary  charac- 
ter of  the  paper  must  not  be  inferred 
from  previous  conversation  ;  the  declara- 
tion must  be  made  at  the  time  of  making 
or  acknowledging  the  signature:  Walsh 
V.  LafEan,  2  Dem.  498,  citing  numerous 
N.  Y.  cases ;  unless  such  previous  conver- 
sation be  so  referred  to  by  the  testator, 
at  the  time  of  the  execution,  as  to  make 
them  an  essential  part  of  the  comtnunica- 
tion:  In  re  Beckett,  103  N.Y.  167,176.  In 
Matter  of  Mackey,  44  Hun,  571,  it  is  said 
that  it  is  impossible  under  the  statute  to 
acknowledge  the  testator's  signature,  un- 
less the  witness  see  the  signature  sought 
to  be  acknowledged  :  s.  c.  HON.  Y.  611. 

1  As  in  Louisiana :  Buntin  v.  John- 
son, 28  La.  An.  796;  Vermont :  Roberts  w. 
Welch,  46  Vt.  164,  168  ;  Virginia  :  Peake 
V.  Jenkins,  80  Va.  293. 

2  So  held  in  Arkansas  :  Rogers  v.  Dia- 
mond, 13  Ark.  474;  Delaware:  Smith  r. 
Dolby,  4  Harr.  350,  351 ;  Kentucky  :  Ray 
V.  Walton,  2  A.  K.  Marsh.  71,  74;  Up- 
church  V.  Upchurch,  16  B.  Mon.  102,  112, 
citing  earlier  Kentucky  cases  ;  Maine  : 
Cilley  V.  Cilley,  34  Me.  162,  164  ;  Mis- 
souri :  Odenwaelder  v.  Schorr,  8  Mo.  App. 


458,  New  Jersey:  Ayers  v.  Ayers,  43 
N.  J.  Eq.  565,  571 ;  New  York  :  Matter  of 
Hunt,  no  N.  Y.  278,  281 ;  Lane  v  Lane, 
95  N.  Y.  494  ;  Matter  of  Austin,  45  Him, 
1;  Ohio:  Randebaugh  v.  Shelley,  6  Oii. 
St.  .307,  315 ;  Vermont :  Dean  v.  Dean,  27 
Vt.  746,  751. 

8  Webb  V.  Fleming,  80  Ga.  808,  812. 

4  Dickie  v.  Carter,  42  111.  376,  386  et  seq. 

5  Brown    v.  McAlister,  34  Ind.    375; 
Turner  v.  Cook,  .36  Ind.  129,  136. 

6  Hulse's  Will,  52  Iowa,  6(>2. 

I  Osburn  V.  Cook,  11  Cusli.  532. 

8  Vcrdier  v.  Verdier,  8  Rich.  135,  142. 

9  Beane  v.  Yerby.  12  Gratt.  239,  244. 
10  Wyndham    v.    Chetwynd,    1    Burr. 

414,  421  ;  Wright  v.  Wright,  7  Bing.  457. 

II  Keigwin  v.   Keigwin,  3    Curt.    607; 
Faulds  V.  Jackson,  6  Notes  Cas.  Sup.  1. 

12  Canada's  Appeal,  47  Conn.  450. 

13  Webb  V.  Fleming,  30  Ga.  808. 

1*  Brown  v.  McAlister,  34  Ind.  375. 
i»  Hulse's  Will,  52  Iowa,  662,  criticising 
Lorieux  !-.  Keller,  5  Iowa,  196. 
le  Cilley  v.  Cilley,  .34  Me.  162. 

17  Higgins    V.    Carlton,    28   Md.    115; 
Etchison  v.  Etchison,  53  Md.  348. 

18  Allen's  Will,  25  Minn.  39. 

19  Loy  V.   Kennedy,    1    W.  &  S.  396; 
Miller  v.  McNeill,  35  Pa.  St.  217. 

2)  Verdier  v.  Verdier,  8  Rich.  L.  l:'5. 

21  Beane     v.    Yerby,    12    Gratt.    239 ; 
Young  V   Barnett,  27  Gratt.  96. 

22  Allen  I'.  Griffin,  69  Wis.  629,  535. 


§  40  ATTESTATION.  71 

It  is  not  necessary  to  use  any  particular  form  iu  the  attestation  ;  ^ 
the  omission  altogether  of  an  attestation  clause  is  not  j^^  ^^^^  ^^  ^^_ 
fatal  to  the  will,'-^  and  its  recitals  mav  be  contradict-  testation  ne- 

'  cessary. 

ed  by  parol  evidence,  if  erroneous.^     The  witnesses, 
like  the  testator,  may  subscribe  by  mark,*  or  by  their  initials,'^ 
if  intended  for  their  mark ;  or  if  they  cannot  write.  Attestation 
the  hand  may  be  guided  by  another  person.''    liut  pru-  nl'lrk,  or'mi- 
dence  requires  that  the    attesting  witnesses   should  ^"*''*" 
be  selected  'among  persons  who  can  read  and  write,  and  that  the 
attestation  clause  should  recite  all  the  formalities  required  in  the 
execution  and  attestation  of  a  will,  because,  in  the  absence  of 
proof  on  these  points,  compliance  with  them  may  be  inferred  from 
their  recital  in  the  attestation  clause;"  and  such  recital  may  also 
furnish  protection  against  the  lack  of  memory  or  wilful  fraud  of 
attesting  witnesses.^ 

The  date  is  not  an  absolutely  essential  part  of  a  will ;  ^  it  may 
be  held  valid,  though  it  has  no  date,  or  a  wrong  one.     If  the 
actual  date  of  its  execution  becomes  material,  it  may  Date  notes- 
be  established  by  parol  proof.^'^     Where  the  will  is  sentiai. 
dated,  the  presumption  is  that  it  was  made  at  the  time  of  its  date.^^ 
Nor  is  it  essential  that  the  will  should  show  the  place  where  it 

1  Lea3-craft  i".  Simmons,  3  Bradf.  35,  39  N.  J.  L.  113;  Lewis  v.  Lewis,  13  Barb. 
37;  Fatheree  ».  Lawrence,  33  Miss.  585,  17,  25;  Rugg  v.  Rugg,  83  N.  Y.  5'J2  ; 
623;  Ela  v.  Edwards,  IG  Gray,  91,  90;  Meurer's  Will,  44  Wise.  392,  399;  1  Am. 
Chaffee  v.  Baptist  Convention,  10  Pai.  Pr.  R.  518,  citing  numerous  New  York 
85;  Crittenden's  Estate,  Myr.  50.  cases  ;  in  New  Jersey  it  was  held  that  tlie 

2  Fry's  Will,  2  R.  I.  88,  91 ;  Taylor  v.  statement  of  facts  in  the  attestation  clause 
Brodhead,  5  Redf.  624,  626,  citing  Bas-  throws  the  burden  of  disproving  them 
kin  V.  Baskin,  48  Barb.  200 ;  Re  Philips  upon  the  opponents  of  the  will :  Tappen 
Will,  1  How.  Pr.  (n.s.)  291  ;  s.  c.  98  N.  Y.  v.  Davidson,  27  N.  .1.  Eq.  459,  citing 
267.  Wright  v.  Rogers,  L.  R.  1  P.  &  D.  678. 

3  Chaffee  v.  Baptist  Convention,  10  8  McMeekin  v.  McMeekin,  2  Hush,  79 
Pai.  85,  89 ;  Taylor  r.  Brodhead,  .sm/j/yi.  (in  this  case  all  the   attesting  witnesses 

*  Thompson   v.   Davitte,    59   Ga.  472,  testified  that  the  testator  had  not  a  dis- 

481;  Compton  v.  Mitton,  12  N.  .7.  L.  70,  posing  mind)  ;  Brown  v.  Clark,  77  N.  Y. 

73;   Jesse   v.    Parker,   6   Gratt.    57,   63;  369;  and   see   cases  post,^  218,   on   the 

Meehan  v.   Rourke,   2   Bradf.    385,  392;  subject  of  probate  of  wills. 

Pridgen  v.  Pridgen,  13  Ired.  L.  259;  Ford  9  Flood  r.  Pragoff.  79  Ky.  607  ;  Austin 

V.  Ford,  7  Humph.  92,  96 ;  Montgomery  v.  Fielder,  40  Ark.  144. 

V.  Perkins,  2  Mete.  (Ky.)   448;  Derry's  i«  Wright  v.  Wright,  5  Ind.  389,  392; 

Estate,  Myr.  202.  Deakins  i:  Hollis,  7  Gill  &  J.  311,  316. 

»  Adams  v.  Chaplin,  1  Hill  (S.  C.)  Eq.  But  a  holographic  will  must,  according 

265,  2ti6.  to  the  statute  of  California,  be  dated  by 

•>  Campbell  v.  Logan,  2  Bradf.  90,  97.  the  testator :  Estate  of  Martin,  58  Cal. 

1  Nelson  v.  McGiffert,  3  Barb.  Ch.  158,  530,  532. 

162 ;  Hall  r.  Hall,  18  Ga.  40,  46  :  Allaire  "  Sawyer  v.  Sawyer,  7  Jones  L.  134. 
V.  Allaire,  37  N.  J.  L.  312, 325,  affirmed  iu 


72  FORM,    EXECUTION,   AND    ATTESTATION   OF   WILLS.         §  41 

was  made ;  this  is  a  matter  dehors  the  will,  which  may  be  proved 
like  any  other  fact.^  But  the  importance  of  showing  in  the  will 
itself  both  its  date  and  place  of  making  is  obvious :  its  validity 
may  depend  upon  either  of  these  facts,  and  if  no  proof  can  be 
made  of  them  it  may  lead  to  its  rejection.^ 

§  41.  Competency  of  Attesting  Witnesses. — The  statutes  mostly 
require  the  witnesses  to  be  "  credible  "  or  "  competent" ;  by  which 
is  meant  that  they  must  be  competent  persons  to  testify  in  a  court 
of  justice,  not  being  disqualified  by  mental  imbecility,  interest,  or 
Competency  crimc.^  That  the  competency  of  the  witnesses  as  at- 
thSorattes-  testing  witnesses  must  refer  to  the  time  of  attestation 
tation.  seems  clear  enough  on  principle ;  else  the  validity  of 

the  will  would  be  made  dependent  on  circumstances  beyond  the 
control  of  the  testator,  and  enable  the  attesting  witnesses,  by  ren- 
dering themselves  incompetent,  to  defeat  it.*  It  is  so  enacted  in 
most  of  the  States ;  °  and  where  not  enacted  by  statute,  it  is  nev- 
ertheless generally  so  held  by  the  courts.^ 

It  was  held  under  the  English  Statute  of  Frauds,  that  a  benefi- 
cial interest  under  the  will  disqualified  the  legatee  as  an  attesting 
Persons  witncss,'  wliich  led  to  the  enactment  of  a  statute  to  rem- 

dafL  ^atllt  ^^y  ^  ^^^  which  "  alarmed  many  purchasers  and  cred- 
incompefent    itors,  and  threatened  to  shake  most  of  the  titles  in  the 

as  attesting  t       •  i  mi  )>  i 

witnesses.  kingdom  that  depended  upon  devises  by  will,  because 
it  "  would  not  allow  any  legatee,  nor  by  consequence  a  creditor, 

1  Succession  of  Hall,  28  La.  An.  57.  ^  For  instance,  in  Alabama,  California, 

2  Phipps  V.  Earl  of  Anglesey,  7  Br.  Indiana,  Kentucky,  Maine,  Massachu- 
P.  C.  443,  holding  that  two  inconsistent  setts,Michigan,  Minnesota,  Nebraska, Ver- 
wills  of  the  same  date,  neither  of  which  niont,  and  Wisconsin.  In  Georgia  the  corn- 
can  be  proved  to  have  been  last  executed,  petency  mentioned  relates  to  the  time  of 
must  both  be  rejected  on  the  ground  of  testifying;  but  it  is  also  provided  that  sub- 
uncertainty,  sequent  disability  of  attesting  witnesses 

3  Carlton  v.  Carlton,  40  N.  H.  14.  17  ;  constitutes  no  bar  to  the  probate  of  the 
Sullivan  v.  Sullivan,  106  Mass.  474  ;  will.  In  Louisiana  women  are  declared 
Comb's  Appeal.  10.5  Pa.  St.  155  ;  Fuller  incompetent  as  attesting  witnesses,  but 
V.  Fuller,  83  Ky.  .345.  A  wife  is  not  a  may  prove  the  handwriting  of  a  testator 
competent  witness  to  her  husband's  will :  when  necessary  to  prove  a  testament : 
Pease  v.  Allis,  110  Mass.  157;  nor  a  Succession  of  Roth,  31  La.  An.  315,  321. 
husband  to  his  wife's  will:  Dickinson  v.  «  Noble  v.  Burnett,  10  Rich.  505,  518 
Dickinson,  61  Pa.  St.  401.  et  seq. ;   Stewart  v.   Harriman,  56  N.  H. 

*  O'Neill,  J.,  dissenting,  in  Workman  25,  27  ;  Rucker  v.  Lambdin,  12  Sm.  &  M. 

«.  Dominick,  3  Strobh.  589,  593;  Patten  230,  250;   Frink  v.  Pond,  46  N.  H.  125, 

V.  Tallman,  27  Me.  17,  27  ;  Haven  t'.  Hil-  126. 

hard,  23  Pick.  10,  18;  Morton  v.  Ingram.  '  Holdfast  v.  Dowsing,  2  Stra.  1253. 

11  Ired.  L.  368;  Higgins  v.  Carlton,  28  Trotters  v.  Winchester,  1  Mo.  (413). 
Md.  116,  140. 


§  41  COMPETENCY   OF    ATTESTING    WITNESSES.  73 

Avhere  the  legacies  were  charged  upon  real  estate,  to  l)c  a  compe- 
tent witness  to  the  devise."  ^     This  statute  ^  provided  that  any 
attesting  witness  to  whom  a  beneficial  devise,  gift,  or   Attesting 
interest    (except    charges   on   lands    for    payment   of   "l^'^'^^^^^l^ 
debts)  was  thereby  made  or  given,  should  be  admitted   [l-^j*','^^',!!;^^;^^ 
as  a  witness  to  the  will ;  and  "  such  devise,  legacy,  then,  made 
estate,  interest,  gift,  or  appointment  shall,  so  far  only 
as  concerned  such  person  attesting  the  execution  of  such  will,  or 
any  person  claiming  under  him,  be  utterly  null  and  void";  and 
that  charges  of  debts  upon  lands  should  not  render  the  creditor 
an  incompetent  witness.     The  provisions  of  this  statute  are  sub- 
stantially enacted  in  most  of  the  States  ;3  hence,  in  them,  interest 
in  the  probate  of  a  will  docs  not  disqualify  an  attesting  witness, 
but  the  fact  of  attesting  disqualifies  the  witness  from  being  a 
beneficiary  legatee  or  devisee;  it  destroys  his  interest  in  tlie  will.* 
That  such  is  the  intention  with  wliich  these  statutes  were  enacted, 
is  evidenced  in  many  of  them  by  affirmatively  providing  that  such 
witnesses  may  be  compelled  to  testify.^ 

It  is  also  provided  by  the  statutes  of  most  of  the  States,  that 
where  an  attesting  witness  is  also  heir  at  law  of  the  testator,  as 
well  as  legatee,  so  that  he  would  be  entitled  to  a  dis-  ^^^^^^  ^^  ^^ 
tributive  share  of  the  estate  in  case  the  will  were  not   heirs  who 

woiila  itiKe 

established,  he   is  not  only  a  competent  witness,  but  without  the 
may  take  under  the   wnll  so  much  that  would  come 
to  him  by  descent  or  distribution  as  may  not  exceed  the  amount 
of  the  devise  or  legacy  to  him.^     The  same  view  is  taken  by 

1  2  Bla.  Comm.  377.  general  object  of  the  law  changing  the 

2  25  Geo.  II.  c.  6.  competency  of  all  witnesses  as  affected 
8  In   Arkansas,   California,   Colorado,     by  interest.    Hence,  in  Alabama,  legatees 

Connecticut,  Georgia,  Illinois,  Indiana,  and  devisees  are  competent  attesting  wit- 
Iowa,  Kansas,  Kentucky,  Massachusetts,  nesses  :  Kuri:ipe  v.  Coons,  63  Ala.  448,  453. 
Michigan,  Minnesota,  Missouri,  Nebras-  *  Fowler  i'.  Stagner,  55  Tex.  393,  3',»8; 
ka,  Nevada,  New  Hampshire,  New  York,  Giddings  i-.  Turgcon,  58  Vt.  106,  111. 
North  Carolina,  Oregon,  Rhode  Island,  »  So  in  the  statutes  of  Arkansas,  Colo- 
South  Carolina,  Texas,  Vermont,  Vir-  rado,  Illinois,  Indiana,  Kentucky.  New 
ginia,  West  Virginia,  and  Wisconsin.  In  York,  North  Carolina,  Rhode  Island, 
Alabama  the  statute  avoiding  a  legacy  Texas,  Vermont,  Virginia,  and  West 
to  an  attesting  witness  was  repealed  in  Virginia. 

1867;  and  it  is  there  held  that  the  com-  6  <^o  in  Arkansas,  California,  Colorailo, 

nion  law  rule  as   to  the  competency  of  Illinois,  Indiana,  Iowa,  Kansas,  Kentucky, 

legatees   and   devisees   as  attesting  wit-  Michigan,   Minnesota,  Missouri,  Nebras- 

nesses  was  not  revived  by  such  repeal,  ka,  New  York,  Oregon,  South  Carolina, 

but  that  they  were  thereby   made  com-  Texas,  Virginia,  West  Virginia,  and  Wis- 

petent  witnesses,  in  accordance  with  the  consin.     In  Connecticut  the  devise  to  an 


74  FORM,   EXECUTION,   AND    ATTESTATION   OF  WILLS.       §  41 

courts  in  the  absence  of  a  statutory  provision,^  and,  a  fortiori,  a 
legatee  is  a  competent  witness  against  a  will.^ 

Where  a  will  contains  a  devise  or  legacy  to  an  attesting  wit- 
ness, but  is  attested  by  a  sufficient  number  of  competent  witnesses 
in  addition  to  such  devisee  or  legatee,  it  may  be  proved 
anestrnK*^  without  his  testimony,  and  the  will  held  good,  including 
undeJ  will,  if  the  gift  to  the  attesting  witness.^  It  is  so  enacted  by 
proved  with-  statute  in  Arkansas,''  California,^  Colorado,^  Connect- 
out  his  sig-  icut,'  Illinois,^  rndiana,^  lowa,^^  Kansas,ii  Kentucky ,^2 
Massachusetts,!^  Michigan,^*  Minnesota,!^  Missouri,!^  Ne- 
braska,i7  Nevada,!^  New  Hampshire,!^  New  York,20  Oregon,^i  Wis- 
consin.22  In  Maine  ^3  the  statute  provides  for  attestation  by  three 
credible  witnesses  not  beneficially  interested ;  and  in  Texas,^^  if 
one  of  the  attesting  witnesses  be  a  devisee  or  legatee,  the  will 
may  be  proved  by  the  corroboration  of  one  or  more  other  "  disin- 
terested and  credible"  witnesses,  and  will  then  be  good,  including 
the  gift  to  the  attesting  witness. 

It  was  a  question  under  the  statute  of  frauds  whether  a  witness 
rendered  incompetent  by  reason  of  his  interest  under  the  will 
Witness         could   bc   rcstorcd   to    competency  by   destroying   his 

incompetent      .  ,  r-  i  j_   i     r  j. 

becomes         interest  by  means  of  a  release  or  payment  before  tes- 

attesting  heir  at  law  is  good  :  Gen.  St.  held  unnecessary,  and  hence  a  legacy  to 

1888,  p.  134,  §  539.     So  held  in  Fortune  v.  him  is  not  thereby  avoided  :  Cornwell  v. 

Buck,  23  Conn.  1,  6  ;  two  judges  dissent-  Woolley,  47  Barb.  327. 

ing,  holding  that  the  statute  held  devise  *  Dig.  1884,  §  6537. 

good  only  to  the  extent  of  the   inherit-  -  ^  Civ.  Code,  §  1282. 

ance  (p.  9).     In  Vermont  the  heir  at  law  «  Gen.  St.  1883,  §  3485  (2792). 

is  excepted  from  the  provision  affecting  "^  Gen.  St.  1888,  §  539. 

devises  to  attesting  witnesses  :  Rev.  L.  ^  St.  &  Curt.  St.  1885,  p.  2471,  §  8. 

1880,  §  2046.     In  Tennessee  the  statute  ^  Rev.  St.  1881,  §  2586. 

provides  that  the  will  shall  be  attested  ^  Code,  1886,  §  2327. 

by   two   witnesses   at    least,   no    one   of  ii  Dass.  St.  1885,  eh.  117,  §  11. 

which  shall  be  interested  in  the  devised  12  Gen.  St.  1883,  p.  835,  §  13. 

lands ;    and  it  is  held  that  a  legatee  of  13  -pwh.  St.  1882,  p.  748,  §  3. 

personalty,  who  is  also  an  heir  at   law,  "  How.  St.  1882,  §  5791. 

but  takes  no  interest  in  the  land  under  i^  gt,  i878,  p.  568,  §  7. 

the  will,  is  a  competent  witness  :  Walker  16  jXev.  St.  1879,  §  3997. 

V.  Skeene,  3  Head,  1,  4.  "  Comp.  St.  1885,  ch.  23,  §  130. 

1  Graham    v.   O'Fallon,   4    Mo.   601  ;  is  Gen.  St.  §  3003. 
Dickey  v.  Malechi,  6  Mo.  177 ;  Comstock  i9  Gen.  L.  1878,  p.  455,  §  8. 

i;.  Hadlyme  Society,  8  Conn.  254.  2°  3  Banks  &  Bro.  Rev.  St.  (7th  ed.) 

2  Leslie  v.  Sims,  39  Ala.  161.  p.  2287,  §  50. 

8  Where,   as   in   New  York,  the  will  21  Code,  1887,  §  3087. 

may  be   proved   by  the  remaining  wit-  22  Rev.  St.  1878,  §  2284. 

nesses  if  one  of  them  be  a  non-resident,  23  fjgv.  St.  1883,  p.  608,  §  1. 

the   testimony   of    such   non-resident   is  24  Rgv.  St.  1879,  §§  4872,  4873. 


§  41  COMPETENCY    OF    ATTESTING    WITNESSES.  75 

tifying ;  and  it  seems  that  the  hiw  was  finally  so  held.^   rvTI-asin 
But  such  a  witness  is  not  rendered  competent  by  an   bisinierust. 
assignment  of  his  interest ;  it  must  be  by  release.^    This  subject  is 
re,L!;uhited  by  statute  in  Arkansas,^  Missouri,*  Oregon,^  and  Rliode 
Island.^     In  North  Carolina  it  has  been  held  that  a  release  will 
not  render  competent  an  attesting  witness.'^ 

The  interest  disipialiiying  a  devisee  or  legatee  is  a  beneficial 
interest ;  hence  a  gift  to  the  husband  or  wife  of  an  attesting  wit- 
ness renders  such  witness  incompetent,  unless,  imder   ^.,  ^  ^ 

'  Gift  to  hus- 

the  law,  such  gift  is  void.^     ]t  was  held  in  England    band  or  wife 

.    _^    _,  TT      T  1  ,  •  -I  Ti    i        disqualifies, 

that  the  statute  of  25  Geo.  11.  did  not  avoid  a  giit  to 
the  husband  or  wife  of  an  attesting  witness  ;9  in  consequence 
whereof,  by  the  Wills  Act,  the  disqualification  to  take  beneficially 
was  extended  to  the  husband  or  wife  of  an  attesting   but  not  if 
witness.     This  feature  of  the  English  act  is  incorpo-    avoids  such 
rated  into  the  statutes  of  Connecticut,^"^  Georgia,^!  Mas-    s'^*- 
sachusetts,^2  South  Carolina,^^  Virginia,^*  and  West  Virginia.^^     In 
Iowa,  under  a  general  statute  making  husband  and  wife  compe- 
tent witnesses  for  each  other,  the  wife  of  a  legatee  is  held  to  be  a 
competent  attesting  witness ;  ^"^and  so  also  the  husband  of  a  devisee.^^ 

1  1  Jarm.  on  Wills,  *70 :  Peakins  v.  the  devise ;  and  that  therefore  the  per- 
HoUis,  7  Gill  &  J.  311,  315;  Kerns  v.  son  benefited  by  a  devise,  not  himself 
Soxnian,  16  Serg.  &  K.  315,  317;  Cook  or  herself  the  devisee,  is  not  a  competent 
I'.  Grant,  16  Serg.  &  H.  198,  '208  ;  Weems  attesting  witness.  In  the  latter  case, 
V  Weems,  19  Md.  334,  344;  Nixon  v.  Gray,  J.,  cites  the  cases  of  Jackson  v. 
Armstrong,  38  Tex.  29i).  Woods,    1  Johns.    Cas.  163,    Jackson   v. 

2  Haus  V.  Palmer,  21  Pa.  St.  296,  209,  Darland,  2  Johns.  Cas.  314,  and  Winslow 
overruling  Search's  -Appeal,  13  Pa.  St.  v.  Kimball,  25  Me.  493,  all  of  them  hold- 
1U8.  ing  that  the  unity  of  husband  and  wife 

3  Dig.  1884,  §  6539,  by  release;  or  if  is  such  that,  if  either  be  a  witness  to  a 
legatee  die  before  testator,  or  before  re-  will  containing  a  devise  to  the  other, 
ceiving  his  legacy,  his  attestation  will  be  such  devise  is  void,  and  the  witness 
legal  :  §  6540.  therefore  competent,  dissenting  from  this 

4  Rev.  St.  1879,  §  3999.  view. 

5  Code,  1887,  §  3089.  9  Hatfield  v.  Thorp,  5  B.  &  Aid.  589, 

6  Attestation  becomes  valid  if  legatee  595. 

die    before   probate   of    will  :    Pub.    St.  ^  Gen.  St.  1888,  §  539. 

1882,  p.  472,  §  17.  "  In  this  State  the  husband  may  attest 

'  Allison  i'.  Allison,  4  Hawks,  141, 174,  a  will  devising  separate  property  to  his 

Morton  c.  Ingram,  11  Ired.  L.  .368,  370.  wife,  but  his  credibility  is  submitted  to 

8  Giddiiigs    V.   Turgeon,    58    Vt.    106,  the  jury  :  Code,  1882,  §  2417. 

Ill ;  Sullivan  v.  Sullivan,  106  Mass.  474  ;  »2  Pub.  St.  1882,  p.  748,  §  3. 

both  cases  holding  that  the  statutes  (but  ^^  ^pv.  St.  1882,  §  1857. 

which  have  since  been  amended  in  this  ^*  Code,  1887,  §  2529. 

respect)    avoid  only  beneficiary   gifts  to  i*  Code,  1887,  p.  642,  §  18. 

the  attesting  witnesses,  not  to  any  other  ^''  Hawkins  v.  Hawkins,  54  Iowa,  443 

person,   although    the   attesting   witness  (2  Am.  Prob.  11.  401). 

might  incidentally  take  some  benefit  from  ^1  Bates  v.  Officer,  70  Iowa,  343. 


76  FORM,    EXECUTION,    AND    ATTESTATION    OF   WILLS.        §  42 

For  the  same  reason,  a  devise  or  bequest  not  beneficial  to  the 
Gift  not  attesting  witness  does  not  disqualify  him.  A  devise  in 
does  n^of  trust  to  Sell,  or  the  devise  of  a  power,  does  not  consti- 
disquaiify.  ^^^g  gyd^  an  interest  in  the  devisee  as  will  either 
render  him  incompetent  or  avoid  the  devise.^  Whether  a  per- 
son nominated  in  the  will  as  executor  is  a  competent 

Executors  as  .  . 

attesting  attesting  Witness,  or  general  witness  to  prove  the  will, 
is  negatived  in  Alabama,^  Delaware,^  and  North  Caro- 
lina;* but  affirmed,  either  on  the  ground  that  the  commissions  to 
which  they  are  entitled  constitute  no  "  beneficial  legacy,"  but  are 
given  as  compensation  for  services  rendered,  or  because  they  are 
rendered  incompetent  to  assume  the  office,  in  Connecticut,^  Flori- 
da,^ Kentucky,'  Maine,^  Maryland,^  Massachusetts,^^  Mississippi/^ 
Missouri,^^  New  Hampshire,^^  New  York,^*  Pennsylvania,^^  South 
Carolina,^^  and  Vermont.^'^  In  Kentucky  it  was  held  that  a  remote 
contingent  interest  in  the  provisions  of  a  will  does  not  disqualify 
an  attesting  witness  from  proving  it ;  the  interest  in  such  case 
goes  to  the  credit,  and  not  to  the  competency,  of  the  witness. ^^ 
In  Maine  neither  a  tax-paying  inhabitant  of  a  town  to  which  a 
legacy  is  given,  nor  a  stockholder  of  a  corporation  which  is  a 
legatee,  is  incompetent  as  a  subscribing  witness  to  the  will.^^ 

§  42.  Wills  valid  as  to  Personal,  but  not  as  to  Real  Property.  — 
In  most  States  the  statutes  make  no  distinction  in  respect  of 

1  Tucker  v.  Tucker,  5  Ired.  L.  161,  a  general  witness,  having  renounced  tlie 
165;  Feral ta  u.  Castro,  6  Cal.  354,  359;  executorship);  Estep  v.  Morris,  38  Md. 
Hogan  V.  Wyman,  2  Oreg.  302.  417,  423. 

2  Gilbert  v.  Gilbert,  22  Ala.  529,  532,  KJ  Wyman  v.  Symmes,  10  Allen,  153. 
on  the  ground  that  as  the  propounder  he  "  Rucker  v.  Lambdin,  12    Sm.  &  M. 
may  be  liable  for  costs.  230,  254  ;  Kelly  v.  Miller,  39  Miss.  17,  59. 

s  Davis  V.  Rogers,  1  Houst.  44,  6.3.  ^'^  Murphy  v.  Murphy,  24  Mo.  526. 

4  Morton  r.  Ingram,  11  Ired.  L.  368,         i^  Stewart  d.  Harriman,  56  N.  H  25,27, 

370,  holding  that  a  renunciation  of  the  holding  wife  of  executor  also  competent- 
trust  will  not  remove  the  disqualification.         ^*  McDonough  v.   Loughlin,  20   Barb. 

The  same  rule  is  applied  in  this  State  to  238,  245,  approved  in  In  re  Wilson,  103 

the  wife  of  an  executor  :  Huie  v.  McCon-  N.  Y.  374,  376. 

nell,   2    Jones,    L.   455,    457,    overruluig         is  prew  t-.Clarke,  80  Pa.  St.  170, 179,  af- 

Daniel  v.  Proctor,  1  Uev.  428.  firming  Bowenu.  Goranflo,  73  Pa.  St  357. 

°  Havvley  v.  Brown,  1  Root,  494  (e.xec-         ^^  Harleston  v.  Corbett,  12  Rich.  604; 

utor  having  renounced).  Noble  v.  Burnett,  10  Rich.  505.  519,  hold- 

6  Meyer  v.  Fogg,  7  Fla.  292,  294.  ing  the  statute  of  25  Geo.  II.  to  apply, 

''  Orndorf  v.  Hummer,  12  B.  Mon.  619.  avoiding  any  beneficial  interest  of    the 

8  Jones  V.  Tibbetts,  57  Me.  572  ;  Jones  executor 

V.  Larrabee,  47  Me.  474,  480.     For  the  ^^  Richardson   v.   Richardson,   35   Vt. 

same  reason,  the  wife  of  an  executor  is  238,  240. 

a  competent  attesting  witness;   Piper  v  ^^  Berry  v.  Hamilton,  10  B   Mon.  129, 

Moulton,  72  Me.  1-55,  158.  138. 

9  Dorsey  i;.  Warfield,  7  Md.  65,  75  (as  J*  Marston,  Petitioner,  79  Me  25,  45,  50. 


§  42  WILLS   VALID    AS   TO   PERSONAL   PROPERTY.  77 

form  between  wills  disposing  of  personal  and  those 

disposing  of  real  jjroperty,  except  as  to  holographic  wiii^mav'be^^ 

and  nuncin)ativo  wills,  which  will  be  considered  here-  ■^'"'''l »« '"  I'^.r- 

'-     _  soiial,  aiul  Void 

after  ;  ^  but  in  some  of  them  personal  property  may  '^^  "^  ■"'=''1  ^''' 
be  l)cqueathed  by  nuncui)ative  will.^  In  Maryland^ 
and  Tennessee,*  there  is  no  statute  on  the  subject  of  wills  of  per- 
sonalty, hence  the  common  law  is  applicable  to  them  in  these 
States  ;  and  it  follows  that,  as  in  England  before  the  statute  of 
1  Vict.,  so  in  these  States,  a  will  held  inoperative  to  convey  real 
estate  for  want  of  the  requisite  formalities  may  yet  be  good  to 
bequeath  personal  property.^  Thus  a  will  conveying  both  real 
and  personal  property,  left  in  an  unfinished  state,  is  void  as  to 
either  class  of  property  if  it  appear  that  the  testator  left  it  unfin- 
ished while  he  was  still  deliberating  upon  its  contents  ;  but  if  it 
appear  that  he  intended  the  paper,  in  the  form  in  which  it  was 
found,  to  constitute  his  will,  and  was  prevented  from  comj)lcting 
it  by  the  act  of  God  alone,  then  it  may  operate  as  a  valid  will  of 
personal  property,  although  no  real  property  can  pass  by  it.*' 

In  many  of  the  States  personal  property  to  a  limited  amount 
may  be  bequeathed  by  will  differing  in  essential  respects  as  to 
attestation,  form,  etc.  from  wills  devising  real  estate,  or  be- 
queathing personal  estate  of  greater  value.  These  will  be  con- 
sidered in  connection  with  nuncupative  wills.'^ 

The  distinction  between  wills  disposing  of  real  and  such  as 
dispose  of  personal  property  is  important  also  in  connection  with 
the  domicil  of  the  testator ;  for  while  the  former  must  conform 
to  the  lex  rei  sitce,  the  latter  are  in  most  States  held  good  if  in 
accordance  with  the  law  of  the  testator's  domicil,  or  of  the  State 

1  The  States  making  no  distinction  in  guished  from  testaments  (gifts  of  mova- 

tlie  form  and  execution  of  wills  of  real  bles  or  otlier  personal  property)  :  Ilinck. 

and  of  personal  property  are  Alabama,  Test.  L.  §  69.     Tlie  common  law  of  En?- 

Arkansas,  California,  Connecticut,  Dela-  land  is  in  force  as  to  tlie  testamentary 

ware,    Georgia,   Illinois,    Indiana,   Iowa,  disposition  of  personal  property  :  lb.  §  85. 
Kentucky,  Maine,  Massachusetts,  Mich-  ••  Moore   v.    Steele,    10   Humph.    562, 

igan,    Minnesota,   Mississippi,    Missouri,  505;  Williams  v.  Saunders,  5  Cold w.  60, 

Nebraska,  Nevada,  New  Hampshire,  New  69.     See  compilers'  note,  Stat,  of  Tenn., 

Jersey,  New  York,  North  Carolina,  Ohio,  Code,  1884,  §  3003. 

Oregon,     Pennsylvania,    Rhode    Island,  ^  Guthrie  i'.  Owen,  2  Humph.  202,  217 ; 

SouthCarolina.Texas,  Vermont,  Virginia,  Byers  v.  Hoppe,  61  Md.  206. 
West  Virginia,  and  Wisconsin.  ^  Ilevecmon     v.   Devecmon,   43   Md. 

"  As  to  which  see  post,  §  44.  335,  344  et  seq. 

8  In  this  State  wills   (for  the  gift  of  "  See  post,  %  ii. 

lands  and  other  real  estate)  are  distin- 


78  rORM,   EXECUTION,    AND    ATTESTATION   OF   WILLS.        §  43 

or  country  where  made,  or  where  the  property  may  be  found. 
This  aspect  of  the  subject  is  discussed  elsewhere.^  V 

§  43.  Holographic  Wills.  —  Holographic  (or  olographic)  wills, 
written  wholly  by  the  testator  in  person,  differ  from  ordinary 
States  aiiowin  ^ills  Only  in  requiring  less  or  no  formality  of  attesta- 
wiiis  written      tiou.     Provisiou  is  made  for  such  in  the  statutes  of 

by  tlie  testator 

without  attes-    many  States.     They  are   admitted  to   probate   upon 
proof  of  having  been  written  by  the  testator  in  Arkan- 
sas,2  California,^  Kentucky,*  Louisiana,**  Mississippi,^  North  Car- 
olina,' Tennessee,^  Texas,^  Virginia,^*^  and  West  Yirginia.^^ 

The  validity  of    holographic  wills  without  attestation  of    any 

kind  renders  it  difficult,   sometimes,  to  determine  whether  the 

deceased  intended  the  paper  propounded  for  probate 

fectiug  validity  to  constltute  his  last  will  in  the  form  in  which  it  is 

of  such  wills.        „  .     .  •  T     1   •        1  c    XT        1 

found.  Hence  it  is  provided  in  the  statutes  of  North 
Carolina  and  Tennessee  that  such  wills,  to  be  valid,  must  be 
found  among  the  valuable  papers  of  the  deceased,  or  lodged  with 
some  person  for  safe-  keeping. ^^  jf  the  paper  is  imperfect,  as 
where  it  contains  an  attestation  clause  not  signed,  or  leaving 
blanks,  the  presumption  is  against  its  validity  ;  but  proof  of 
intention  may  be  given,  in  rebuttal  of  such  presumption,  that  the 
deceased  abandoned  the  intention  he  once  had  of  giving  effect  to 

1  See  pout,  ch.  xvii. ;  also  §  226.  handwriting  of  the  deceased  in  all  its  parts  : 

2  Dig.  1884,  §  6492.  Proof  of  hand-  Code,  1883,  §  2136;  Brown  v.  Eaton,  91 
writing  must  be  made  by  three  disinter-     N.  C.  26. 

ested  witnesses.  8  Rev.  St.  1884,  §  3004.     Under  same 

^  Civ.   Codes,  §  1277 ;  without  other  conditions  as  in  North  Carolina ;  see  su- 

formality,  whether  it  be  made  within  or  pra,  note  7. 

out  of  the  State.  9  Rev.  St.  1879,  art.  4859,   excepting 

*  Gen.  St.  1883,  p.  8.32,  §  5,  excepting  holographic    will   from    requirement    of 

holographic   wills  from  the  requirement  attestation, 

of  attestation.     But  such  a  will  must  be  ^  Code,  1887,  §  2514. 

signed  by  tlie  testator  at  its  conclusion  "  Code,  1887,  ch.  77,  §  3. 

like  an  ordinary  will :  Jones  v.  Jones,  3  12  Supra,  notes  7  and  8.     It   must  be 

Mete.  (Ky.)  266,  270.  proved,  in  addition  thereto,  that  the  pa- 

^  Code,  art.  1581.     The  only  require-  per  was  so  deposited  or  lodged  for  safe 

ment  is,  whether  made  in  or  out  of  the  keeping  v)it!i  the  intent  that  it  should  oper- 

State,  that  it  must  be  entirely   written,  ate  as  his  will;  and  by  three  witnesses, 

dated,  and  signed  by  the  testator.  not  only   that   it  is   in  the  handwriting 

6  Kev.  Code,  1880,  §  1262,  excepting  of  the  deceased,  but  also  that  his  hand- 
holographic  wills  signed  by  the  testator  writing  was  generally  known  among  his 
from  the  requirement  of  attestation.  acquaintances:    Hooper   v.   McQuary,   5 

^  If  found  among  the  valuable  papers  Coldw.  129,   1-10  ct  seq. ;  Marr  v.   Marr, 

and  effects  of  the  deceased,  or  lodged  with  2   Head,  ."03;  Tate  v.  Tate,  11  Humph, 

some  person  for  safe  keeping,  and  proved  465;   Crutcher  v.  Crutcher,  11   Humph, 

by  three  credible  witnesses  to  be  in  the  377,  380. 


§  44  HOLOGRAPHIC    WILLS.  79 

the  paper,  or  tliat  he  meant  it  to  operate  in  its  then  condition,  or 
that  he  was  in  the  progress  of  finishing  it,  and  prevented  by  the 
act  of  Ood.^ 

It  is  held  in  Louisiana,  that  the  fact  of  names  of  witnesses 
being  ajjpcndcd  to  the  will  neither  invalidates  it  nor  deprives  it 
of  its  holographic  character ;  -  and  that  the  probate  of  it  must  be 
that  required  for  holographic  wills.^  And  in  California,  if  the 
name  of  the  testator  ap[)car  in  the  opening  part  of  the  will,  it  is 
valid  without  being  subscribed;'*  but  that  a  paper  printed  in  the 
form  of  a  stationer's  blank,  with  the  vacant  spaces  filled  in  de- 
ceased's handwriting,  is  not  a  holographic  will  in  whole  or  in 
part;^  nor  is  the  statute  complied  with,  if  a  part  of  the  date  is 
printed.^ 

§  44.  Nuncupative  Wills.  —  Nuncupative  wills,  or  testamentary- 
declarations  in  presence  of  witnesses  without  any  writing  by  the 
testator,  were  at  common  law  of  equal  validitv  with  writ-  ,, 

.  .   .  "  Nuncupative 

ten  wuls  for  the  disposition  of  personal  property.'^  By  wills  affected 
the  Statute  of  Frauds  several  restrictions  were  placed  statute  of 
upon  them,  "  for  the  prevention  of  fraudulent  prac-  '^^^'^^' 
tices  in  setting  up  nuncupative  wills,  which  have  been  the  occa- 
sion of  much  perjury."^  The  provisions  of  this  statute,  although 
rendered  inoperative  in  England  by  the  statute  of  1  Vict.  c.  26, 
which  does  away  with  nuncupative  wills  altogether,  except  as  to 
soldiers  and  mariners  in  actual  service,  are  still  in  force  in  most 
of  the  American  States,  with  more  or  less  modification. 

The  English  Statute  of  Frauds  affected  such  nuncupative  wills 
only  as  disposed  of  property  exceeding  <£50  in  value ;  where  the 
property  bequeathed  amounted  to  less,  the  common  law  «  ^^  •  .- 
still  governed.  In  a  number  of  States  this  principle  was  "f  "'e  statute 
adopted,  limiting  the  statutory  restrictions  on  nuncupa-  beriuests  ex- 
tive  wills  to  such  as  bequeath  property  exceeding  a  cer-  tain  amounts 
tain  value;  namely,  !$300  in  Maryland 9;  -$250  in  Ten-  ""'-^• 
nesseei^  1150  in  Nebraska^i  and  Wisconsin ^2.  uqO  in  Maine,^^ 

1  Forbes  v.  Gordon,  3  PliiU.  614,  628;  «  Estate  of  Billings,  64  Cal.  427. 
Hill  V.  Bell,  Phillips  L.  122, 124,  citing  Har-  ■?  Wms.  Ex.  [116]. 

risen  v.  Burgess,  1  Hawks,  384,  and  Brown  *  29  Car.  II.  c.  3,  §  19. 

V.  Beaver,  3  Jones,  516,  to  same  effect.  9  Hinek.  Test.  L.  §  315;  Code,  1878,  p. 

2  Andrews  v.  Andrews,  12  Mart.  713.        421,  art.  49,  §  10. 

8  Succession  of  Roth,  31  La.  An.  315,  i'^  Code,  1884,  §  3006. 

317.  "  Comp.  St.  1881,  p.  .300,  §  128. 

*  Johnson's  Estate,  Myr.  5.  12  -[{ev.  St.  1878,  §  2202. 

6  Estate  of  Rand,  61  Cal.  468.  !»  Rev.  St.  1883,  p.  610,  §  20. 


80 


FORM,   EXECUTION,    AND    ATTESTATION    OP    WILLS.        §  44 


Mississippi/  New  Hampshire,^  and  Pennsylvania^ ;  $80  in  New 
Jersey-*;  $50  in  South  Carolina^;  and  $30  in  Texas.^  But  in 
some  of  these  States  slight  changes  from  the  common  law  af- 
fect all  nuncupative  wills,  particularly  in  the  mode  of  probate, 
which  will  appear  in  connection  with  the  consideration  of  that 
subject^ 

In  other  States  nuncupative  wills  are  permitted  only  for  prop- 
erty not  exceeding  a  certain  value,  fixed  at  $1000  in  California^ 
Nuncupative  and  Nevada^ ;  at  $500  in  Alabama  ^^  and  Arkansas  ^^ ; 
wills  prohib-  .|.gQQ  jj^  iowa,»2  aiid  Michigan  13;   $200  in  Delaware,^* 

itecl  i(ir  prop-     ^  '  o  ' 

erty  exceed-    Missouri,^^  and  Vermont ^^ ;  and  $100  in  Indiana.^"     In 

ing  certain  n  n     ■,     • 

value.  these  States,  by  force  of  their  statutes,  a  nuncupative 

will  disposing  of  property  in  excess  of  the  amount  so  limited  has 
been  lield  void  in  toto?^  In  others  again  there  is  no  limit  to  the 
amount  of  personal  property  which  may  be  bequeathed  by  unwrit- 
ten wills  under  the  conditions  imposed  in  the  statutes.  These  are 
Colorado,i9  Florida,20  Illinois,2i  Kansas,22  Ohio,^^  North  Carolina,24 
Pennsylv^nia,25  South  Carolina,^^  Tennessee^  Texas,^^  and  Wis- 
consin."-^^  Yet  others  limit  the  power  to  soldiers  in  actual  service 
and  mariners  at  sea;  for  instance,  Kentucky ,^0  Massachusetts,^^ 
Minnesota,32  New  York,33  Oregon,^*  Rhode  Island,^^  Virginia,36  and 


1  Rev.  Code,  1880,  §  1266. 

2  Gen.  L.  1878,  p.  456,  §  16. 

8  Bright.  Purd.  Dig.  1883,  p.  1710,  §  8. 
*  Rev.  1877,  p.  1245,  §  13. 
6  Rev.  St.  1882,  §  1876. 

6  Rev.  St.  1879,  §  4862. 

7  PoM,  §§  45,  224. 

8  Civ.  Code,  §  1289. 

9  Gen.  St.  1885,  §  3004. 

10  Code,  1886,  §  1970. 

11  Code,  1884,  §  6504. 

12  Rev.  Code,  1880,  §  2.324. 

13  2  How.  St.  1882,  §  5790. 

14  Laws,  1874,  p.  509,  §  5. 

15  Rev.  St.  1879,  §  .3984. 

16  Rev.  L.  1880,  §  204,3. 
"  Rev.  St.  1881,  §  2577. 

18  Erwin  v.  Humner,  27  Ala.  296,  299  ; 
Strieker  v.  Oldenburgh,  39  Iowa,  653. 
But  a  later  Iowa  case  holds  the  will  good 
for  all  but  tiie  excess  :  Mulligan  v.  Leon- 
ard. 46  Iowa,  692,  694. 

19  Gen.  St.  1883,  §  3483. 

2'5  Except  slaves,  which  before  their 
emancipation  by  President  Lincoln  were 


treated  as  real  property:  McLeod  v.  Dell, 
9  Fla.  451,  455. 

21  St.  &  Curt.  St.  1885,  p.  2478. 1  15. 

22  Dass.  Comp.  L.  1885,  ch.  117,  §69. 

23  Rev.  St.  1880,  §  5991. 

24  Code,  1883,  §  2148, 1  3. 

25  Bright.  Purd.  Dig.  1883,  p.  1710,  §  8. 

26  Rev.  St.  1882,  §  1876. 
2T  Code,  1884,  §  3006. 

2S  Rev.  St.  1879,  art.  4862. 
29  Rev.  St.  1878,  §  2292. 
8^  Gen.  St.  1883,  p.  834,  §  7. 
81  Pub.  St.  1882,  p.  748,  §  6. 

32  St.  of  1878,  p.  568,  §  6. 

33  3  Banks  &  Bro.  Rev.  St.  (7th  ed.)  p. 
2285,  §  22. 

31  There  is  a  provision  in  the  statutes 
of  Oregon  for  nuncupative  wills,  which 
seems  applicable  to  the  common  law 
wills  authorized  to  soldiers  and  mariners : 
see  Hill's  Ann.  L.  1887,  §  3079 ;  also 
§§  .3080,  3081. 

35  Pub.  St.  1882,  p.  472,  §  10. 

36  Code,  1887,  §  2516.  ■ 


§  45  NUNCUPATIVE   WILLS.  81 

West  Virginia.!  But  in  Georgia^  the  statute  expressly  authori/.cs 
all  property,  whether  real  or  jjersonal,  to  pass  by  verbal  will;-^ 
and  so  in  Louisiana,^  whose  testamentary  system  is  largely  bor- 
rowed from  the  civil  law.  The  Texas  statute  providing  for  the 
disposition  of  "  property  "  by  nuncupative  will,  is  construed  not 
to  extend  to  real  property.^ 

§  45.  Statutory  Regulations  in  Respect  of  Nuncupative  Wills.  — 
The  requisites  for  nuncupative  wills  arc  imi)orted  from  the  Eng- 
lish Statute  of  Frauds  into  the  statutes  of  most  of  the 

^  .  ,  Tn      .•  i  i.  Nuncupative 

American  States,  with  modifications  to  a  greater  or  ^iiis  must  be 

less  extent.    It  is  necessary  that  the  words  spoken  by  ^["^g^'  wi^o'""'' 

the  testator  be  proved  on  oath  by  competent  witnesses,^  ;;,*';''Xi;'f„'g|  ""^ 

"  who  were  present  at  the  making  thereof."     Most  of 

them  also  require  that  the  testator  "  bid  the  persons  present,  or 

some  of  them,  bear  witness  that  such  was  his  will,  or  to  that 

effect."' 

That  the  ro(jatio  testium,  or  request  of  the  testator  to  bear  wit- 
ness to  the  will  he  is  about  to  pronounce,  is  an  essential  feature  of 
all  nuncupative  wills,  is  nowhere  doubted,  even  where 

.    .         ,      ,1     ,      £     Testator    must 

the  statute  contains  no  express  provision  to  that  ei-  request  wit- 
feet.^     But  wdiile  it  cannot  be  supplied  by  inference  uesfhis^'S." 
from  the  nuncupation  itself,^  it  is  not  necessary  that 
particular  words  be  used,  or  a  literal  compliance  with  the  statute 
shown ;  any  form  of  expression,  however  imperfectly  uttered,  so 
that  it  conveys  to  the  minds  of  those  to  whom  it  is  addressed  the 

^  Code,  1887,  cli.  77,  §  5.  tially,  as  spoken,  and  on  a  contest  it  may 

2  Code,  1882,  §  2482.  be  proved  tliat  the   words  spoken   were 

3  Brown  t-.  Carroll,  36  Ga.  568 ;  Cara-  different  from  those  written  by  tliem,  in 
way  V.  Smith,  28  Ga.  541.  which   case   the    will   is   void  :  Bolles  v. 

*  Code,  art.  1570.    See  Wood  v.  Roane,  Harris,  34  Oh.  St.  38,  40. 

35  La.  An.  865  ;  Pfarr  v.  Belmont,  39  La.  "  This  requirement  seems  to  be  omitted 

An.  294.  in  California,  Iowa,  Massachusetts,  Mich- 

5  Moffett  V.  Moffett,  67  Tex.  612.  igan,  Minnesota,  New  York, Ohio,  Oregon, 

6  E.xcept  in  Florida,  Georgia,  Maine,  Rhode  Island,  Vermont,  Virginia,  and 
Nebraska,  New  Hampshire,  New  Jersey,  West  Virginia.  It  is  contained,  subst;in- 
South  Carolina,  Texas,  and  Wisconsin,  in  tially  in  the  language  of  the  English 
which  States  three  witnesses  are  still  re-  statute,  in  tlie  other  States. 

quired,  the  number  is  in  others  reduced  ^  Ridley  r.  Coleman,  1  Sneed,  616,  618  ; 

to  two.     In  Alabama  and   Vermont  the  Brown  r.  Brown,  2  Murphy,  350  ;  Broach 

statute  does  not  mention  tlie  number  of  r.    Sing,    67    Miss.    115,    116 ;    and   see 

witnesses  in  connection  with  nuncupative  authorities    in   notes,    infra. 
wills.     In  Louisana  from  three  to  seven  "  Ilinck.   Test.    L.    §   320;    Biddle    v. 

are  required  under  the  various  circuni-  Biildle,  3^  Md.  630,  643  e^w/.  .•  Sampson 

stances  mentioned  in  the  statute.      The  i'.  Browning,  22  Ga.  293,  301;  Dawson  s 

witnesses  must  prove  the  words,  substan-  Appeal,  23  Wise.  69,  88. 

VOL.  I,  —  6 


82  FORM,   EXECUTION,    AND    ATTESTATION   OF    WILLS.        §  45 

idea  that  he  desires  them,  or  some  of  them,  to  bear  witness  to  the 
disposition  he  is  about  to  make  of  his  property,  is  sufficient.^  It 
has  been  decided  in  Pennsylvania,  that  a  look  is  not  a  sufficient  ro- 
gatio  testium}  The  a7timo  testandi  must  be  proved  as  clearly,  and 
with  the  same  certainty,  at  least,  as  in  wills  written  and  attested 
in  writing.^  In  some  of  the  States  the  witnesses  are  expressly  re- 
quired by  the  statute  to  prove  affirmatively  that  the  testator,  at  the 
time  of  speaking  the  testamentary  words,  was  of  sound  mind.'* 

"  That  such  nuncupative  will  was  made  in  the  time  of  the  last 
sickness  of  the  deceased,  in  the  house  of  his  habitation  or  dwell- 
Must  be  made  ing,  or  whcrc  he  or  she  hath  been  resident  for  the 
in  last  sickness  gp^ce  of  ten  davs  or  more  next  before  the  making  of 

at  testator  s  Ir  " 

dwelling.  such  will,  cxccpt  where  such  person  was  surprised  or 

taken  sick  being  from  his  own  home,  and  died  before  he  returned 
to  the  place  of  his  or  her  dwelling."  This  provision  has,  of  course, 
no  application  to  soldiers  or  mariners ;  but  with  this  exception 
has  been  substantially  incorporated  into  the  statutes  of  nearly  all 
the  States.5  The  phrase  "  last  sickness,"  in  Illinois,  is  construed 
not  to  mean  in  extremis;^  but  otherwise  in  Pennsylvania,'^  Mary- 
land,^ and  New  Jersey.^  In  Delaware  such  a  will  must  be  made 
within  three  days  before  the  testator's  death,  or  under  circum- 
stances rendering  it  impossible  to  make  a  written  will.^^ 

The  Statute  of  Frauds  prohibits  the  introduction  of  any  testi- 
mony to  prove  testamentary  words  after  the  expiration  of  six 
Must  be  ad-  months  from  the  time  they  were  spoken,  "  except  the 
mitted  to  pro-     g^^j^j  testimony,  or  the  substance  thereof,  were  com- 

bate  within  a  •'  '  i  c  xi  i  •  £ 

certain  time,      mittcd  to  Writing  witliiu  SIX  days  alter  the  making  oi 

1  Weir  V.  Chidester,  63  111    453,  455 ;  v.  Stevens,  78  111.  287,  as  holding  that 

Arnett  v.  Arnett,  27  111.  247,  249;  Mulli-  the  statute  as  to  nuncupative  wills  must 

gan  V  Leonard,  46  Iowa,  692,  694  et  seq. ;  receive  a  rigid  and  strict  construction. 
Parkison  v.  Parkison,  12  Sm.  &  M.  672,  '^  Boyer  v.  Frick,  4  Watts  &  S.  357, 

«78  •  Hatcher  v.  Millard,  2  Coldw.  30,  33  360,  where  it  is  said  that  a  nuncupative 

et  scq. ;  Smith  v.  Smith,  63  N.  C.  637,  639  will  is  allowed  only  if  made  in  such  ex- 

fl/.sf9.  .•Bourkei;.Wilson,38La.An..320.  tremity  of  last  sickness  as  precludes  a 

■i  Will  of  Meisenhelter,  15  Phila.  651.  written  one ;  Yarnall's  Will,  4  Rawle,  46, 

3  Gibson  v.  Gibson,  Walk.  364  ;  Phipps  65.     See  the  case  of  Prince  v.  Hazleton, 

V.  Hope,  16  Oh.   St.  586,  595 ;  Lucas  v.  20  Johns.  502,  510  et  seq.,  for  a  review  of 

Goff  3.3  Miss.  629,  645.  the  law  of  nuncupative  wills  on  this  point, 

1  So  in  Colorado,  Illinois,  Kansas,  and  befdre   the   restriction  of  such    wills   in 

qjjJq  New  York  to  soldiers  and  mariners. 

5  The  only  exceptions,  apparently,  are  ^  O'Neill  r.  Smith,  33  Md.  569,  573. 
Iowa,  Louisiana,  Michigan,  and  Vermont.  ^  Carroll  v.  Bonham,  42  N.  J.  Eq.  625, 

6  Harrington  v.  Steer,  82  111.  50,  54,  627. 

Breese,  J.,  dissenting,  and  citing  Morgan         i»  Laws,  1874,  p.  509,  §  6. 


§  45  NrNCL'PATlVE   WILLS.  83 

said  will."  Wliiki  tlie  substance  of  this  provision  is  embodied  in 
the  statutes  of  most  States,  there  is  considerable  diversity  as  to 
the  time  allowed  for  the  reduction  of  the  testamentary  words 
into  writing.  The  Statute  of  Frauds  is  precisely  followed,  in  this 
respect,  in  Alabama,^  Florida,^  Maine,^  Mississippi,'*  Nebraska,^ 
New  Hampshire,^  New  Jersey,"  South  Carolina,^  Texas,^  and  Wis- 
consin.i'^  In  North  Carolina  and  Tennessee  ten  days  are  allowed 
for  its  reduction  to  writing  ;  in  Georgia,  thirty  days.  In  some  of 
the  States  there  can  be  no  probate  after  six  months,  nor  unless 
the  words  be  reduced  to  writing  within  a  certain  time,  varying 
from  three  to  thirty  days.^^  In  Nevada  there  can  be  no  probate 
after  three  months.  The  provisions  that  there  must  There  must  be 
be  notice  to  the  parties  in  interest  (widow  or  next  of  and^next"[)f°^ 
kin),  and  that  "  no  letters  testamentary  or  probate  of  '''"• 
any  nuncupative  will  shall  pass  the  seal  of  any  court  till  fourteen 
days  at  the  least  after  the  death  of  the  testator  be  fully  expired,"  ^^ 
are  generally  applicable  in  all  the  States. 

Nuncupative  wills  are  watched  by  the  courts  with  a  jealous  eye. 
Aside  from  the  statutory  restrictions  placed  upon  them,  the  ease 
with  which  frauds  may  be  accomplished  in  establish- 
ing them  demands   close  scrutiny  of   the  testimony  wills  n<.t  ia- 
offercd,  and  strict  proof  of  every  fact  upon  which  their 
vali<lity  is   made  to  depend. ^'^     Where  several  witnesses  are  re- 
quired by  the  statute,  each  one  must  prove  all  the  facts,i^  and  all 
must  be  present  at  the  same  time.^^ 

It  has  sometimes  been  held,  that  instructions  for  the  drawino- 
of  a  written  will,  declared  before  the  requisite  number  of  wit- 
nesses, may  constitute  a  valid  nuncupative  will  where  the  testator 

1  Code,  1886,  §  1973.  mont.     In  Pennsylvania  within  six  days: 

2  MeCIell.  Dig.  1881,  p.  988,  §  11.  Taylor's  Appeal,  47  Pa.  St.  31,  36. 
8  Rev.  St.  1883,  p.  610,  §  19.  12  §  2I  of  29  Car.  IL  c.  8. 

4  Rev.  Code,  1880,  §  1267.  '3  Dorsey  v.  Shepnard,  12  Gill  &  J.  102, 

6  Comp.  St.  1881,  p.  300,  §  129.  198:   Werkheiser  I'.AVcrkheiser,  6  Watts 

6  Gen.  L.  1878,  p.  456,  §  16.  &  S.  184,  189 ;  Parsons  v.  Parsons,  2  Me. 

T  Rev.  1877,  p.  1246,  §  14.  298,  300. 

8  Rev.  St.  1882,  §  1877.  In  this  State  i"  Morgan  v.  Stevens.  78  111.  287 ; 
there  can  be  no  probate  of  a  nuncupative  Mitchell  r.  Vickers,  20  Tex.  377,  884  ; 
will  after  the  expiration  of  twelvemonths  Haus  v.  Palmer,  21  Pa.  St.  296,  299; 
from  its  speaking.  Lucas  v.  Goff,  33  Miss.  629,  645. 

9  Rev.  St.  1879,  art.  4865.  1°  Tally  i-.  Butterworth,  10  Yerg.  501. 
i»  Rev.  St.  1878,  §  2293.  But  see,  contra,  Portwood  v.  Hunter,  6  B. 
"  So  in  Arkansas,  California,  Georgia,      Mon.  538. 

Indiana,  Kansas,  Missouri,  Ohio,  and  Ver- 


84  FORM,    EXECUTION,    AND    ATTESTATION   OF   WILLS.        §  46 

is  by  the  act  of  God  rendered  incapable  of  completing  it  in  the 
mode  contemplated  by  him ;  ^  at  least  where  it  appears  from  all 
the  circumstances  in  the  case  that  it  contains  the  final  wish  and 
intention  of  the  testator  respecting  the  property  bequeathed.^ 
But  this  doctrine  —  which  is  but  the  statement  of  the  common  law 
rule  in  regard  to  wills  of  personal  property  (not  required  to  be 
in  writing)  whereby  the  presumption  arising  against  an  unfin- 
ished written  will  might  be  rebutted  ^  —  must  be  understood  as 
being  governed  by  the  statutory  provisions  on  the  subject,  and 
not  as  giving  effect  to  an  incomplete  written  will,  or  to  the  memo- 
randum of  a  scrivener,  or  the  proof  by  witnesses  of  instructions 
received  for  the  preparation  of  such,  unless  all  the  formalities 
prescribed  for  a  nuncupative  will  have  also  been  complied  with.* 

§  46.   Wills  of  Soldiers  and  Mariners.  —  Wills  made  by  soldiers 

in  actual  military  service  and  mariners  at  sea  are  construed  with 

greater  liberality  than  nuncupative  wills  of  other  per- 

Sg^in^'.ervice  so^s.     By  the  civil  law  the  ordinary  formalities  of 

and  mariners      executiuo;  nuncupative  wills  were  dispensed  with  in 

at  sea  con-  o  i  i        ^ 

strued  witb  favor  of  soldicrs ;  their  wills  were  held  valid,  although 
they  should  neither  call  the  legal  number  of  witnesses, 
nor  observe  any  other  of  the  ordinary  solemnities  in  the  execution 
of  such  instruments.^  This  privilege  was  also  extended  to  the 
naval  service  ;  ^  and  has  been  generally  adopted  among  civilized 
nations,  coming  to  us  through  the  common  law,  left  substantially 
unaffected  by  the  English  Statute  of  Frauds.  The  war  of  the  rebel- 
lion has  given  rise  to  numerous  cases  involving  the  validity  of  sol- 
diers' wills,  and  it  may  be  said  that  courts  look  upon  them  with  as 
much  favor  as  with  disfavor  upon  the  unwritten  wills  of  others. 

In  the  absence  of  statutory  regulations  on  the  subject,  the 
Conditions  to  usual  Conditions  to  nuncupative  wills  are  not  appli- 
nuncupative       cable  to  the  wills  of  soldiers  or  mariners :  the   sin- 

wills  not  ap- 
plicable, gie  question  being  whether  the  deceased  comes  within 

1   Mason    v.   Dunman,    1    Munf.   456,  5  i   Rgrlf.  on  Wills,  193,  pi.  18,  citing 

459;  Offiitt   V.   Offutt,    3    B.   Mon.    162;  Inst.  lib.  2,  tit.  11. 

Boofter  v.  Rogers,  9  Gill,  44,  53 ;  Phoebe  «  Ex  parte  Thompson,  4  Bradf.   154, 

V.  Boggess,  1  Gratt.  129,  142.  157.     The  opinion  in  this  case  contains 

'  Frierson  v.  Beall,  7  Ga.  438,  441.  a  concise  review  of  the  history  of  nun- 

3  Wnis.  Ex.  [69].  cupatory    wills   by    Surrogate   Bradford, 

*  Dockum  V.  Robinson,  26  N.  H.  372,  which  may  be  consulted   with  profit  by 

381  et  aeq. ;  Repse  v.  Hawthorn,  10  Gratt.  those  interested  in   the   question  of  un- 

548,  550;    Hebdeii's    Will,   20  N   J.  Eq  written  wills. 

473,  476. 


or  manner. 


§  47  WILLS   OF   SOLDIERS    AND    MARINERS.  85 

the  class  of  persons  under  consideration ;  namely,  whetlicr  he  was 
a  soldier  in  actual  service  or  a  mariner  at  sea.^  It  is  who  is  a  sol- 
held  on  this  })()int,  that  the  term  *'  soldier  "  eml)races  <^''^'"' 
every  grade,  from  the  private  to  the  highest  officer,  and  includes 
the  gunner,  the  surgeon,  or  the  general  ;2  and  the 
term  "mariner"  ajiplies  to  every  person  in  the  naval 
service,  from  the  common  seaman  to  the  captain  or  admiral.^ 
But  it  does  not  include  mariners,  though  at  sea,  who  are  so  as 
passengers,^  nor  soldiers  in  time  of  peace,  or  when  not  in  actual 
service.^  But  by  actual  service  is  not  meant  that  he  should  be 
engaged  in  or  on  the  eve  of  a  battle ;  if  he  is  in  the  enemy's 
country,  or  under  military  orders,  whether  in  camp  or  campaign 
service,  he  is  in  actual  military  service  ;^  and  so  if  he  be  at  the 
time  in  a  hospital^ 

It  may  be  repeated  here,  that,  in  the  absence  of  statutory  pro- 
visions to  the  contrary,  the  nuncupative  will  of  soldiers  and  mari- 
ners may  be  proved,  like  wills  of  personalty  at  common  law,  by 
one  witness.^ 

§  47.    Codicils.  —  A  codicil  is  some  addition  to  or  qualification 
of  a  last  will.     Whatever  may  have  been  the  origin  of  this  species 
of  testamentary  disposition,  they  have,  in  America,  no  what  is  a 
other  function  or  office,  and  are  governed  by  the  same  '=°'^'^''- 
rules,  and  must  be  executed  with  the  same  formalities,  as  the 
wills  themselves  of  which  they  form  a  constituent  part.^     It  is 

1  Ex  parte  Thompson,  supra,  p.  158.  see    Smith's  Will,  6  Phila.  104,  holding 

^  Ex  parte   Thompson,  supra,  p.  159,  that  a  soldier  at  home  on  furlough  is  not 

citing    In    the    Goods   of    Donaldson,   2  within  the  statute. 

Curt.  38tj ;  Shearman  v.    Pyke,  reported  6  Van  Deuzer  v.  Gordon,  .39  Vt.  Ill, 

in  Drummond  v.  Parish,  3  Curt.  539;    Re  119. 
Prendergast,  5  Notes  of  Cas.  92.  7  Gould  v.  Safford,  39  Vt.  498,  -507. 

3  Ex   parte  Thompson,   supra,   citing  »  Goods    of    White,    22  L.  Kep.  110, 

Morrell  i'.   Morrell,  1    Hagg.  61;  In   the  114;    Gould  v.  Safford,  39  Vt.  498;    Ex 

Goods  of  Hayes,  2  Curt.  338.     Including  parte  Thompson,  4  Bradf.  159. 
a  cook  :  4  Bradf.  159.  9  "  A    codicil,   duly   executed,    is    an 

*  Warren  v.  Harding,  2  R.  I.  183,  1.38;  addition  or  supplement  to  a  will,  and  is 
a  mariner  is  "at  sea  "on  a  coasting  vessel,  no  revocation  thereof  except  in  the  i)re- 
though  anchored  in  an  arm  of  the  sea  cise  degree  in  which  it  is  inconsistent 
where  the  tide  ebhs  and  flows:  Hubbard  therewith,  unless  there  be  words  of  revo- 
lt. Hubbard,  8  N.  Y.  196,  199  ;  but  not  on  cation.  And  it  is  an  established  prima 
the  Mississippi  River:  Gwin's  Will,  1  facie  rule  of  construction,  that  an  ad- 
Tuck.  44.  ditional    legacy    given    by   a    codicil    is 

°  Leathers  v.  Greenacre,  53  Me.  561,  attended   with    the    same   incidents   and 

571,  citing  Drummond  v.  Parish,  3  Curt,  qualities  as   the  original  legacy.     Upon 

522:    White  v.  Repton,  3  Curt.  818;   In  the  same  principle,  a  devise  upon  condi- 

the  Goods  of  Hill,  1  Robertson,  27G.     And  tion  that  the  devisee  shall  comply  with 


86  FORM,    EXECUTION,    AND   ATTESTATION    OF    WILLS.        §  47 

prima  facie  dependent  upon  the  will ;  the  destruction  or  mutila- 
tion of  the  will  is  an  implied  revocation  of  the  codicil.^ 

One  of  the  most  important  offices  which  a  codicil  may  perform, 
as  part  of  a  pre-existing  will,  is  the  effect  ascribed  to  it  of  confirm- 
Effectof  i^^o  or  republishing  such  will.     Being,  in  law,  part  of 

codicil.  j^  man's  will,  whether  so  described  in  the  codi(;il  or 

not,  or  whether  or  not  expressly  cpnfirmatory  of  it,  it  furnishes 
conclusive  evidence  of  the  testator's  considering  his  will  as  then 
existing,^  whether  cancelled  by  obliteration  (if  it  continues  to  be 
legible)  or  otherwise.^  And  for  the  same  reason  it  operates  to 
establish  a  will  which  would  be  void  for  want  of  compliance  with 
the  law  regulating  its  execution  and  attestation,*  because  the 
codicil,  speaking  and  operating  from  the  time  of  its  execution, 
brings  the  will  to  it  and  makes  it  a  will  from  the  date  of  the 
codicil.^  The  codicil,  to  have  such  effect,  must  self- 
attached  to  evidently  refer  to  the  will  with  sufficient  certainty  to 
the  will.  identify  it ;  ^  but  it  is  not  essential  that  the  two  papers 

be  annexed  together,  or  that  the  codicil  be  written  on  the  same 
paper  or  parchment  with  the  will.''  But  if  there  are  several  wills 
of  different  dates,  the  circumstance  of  annexation  is  powerful  to 
show  that  it  was  intended  as  a  codicil  to  the  will  to  which  it  is 
annexed,  and  to  no  other.^  If  not  annexed  to  any  will,  the  codi- 
cil, where  no  express  date  is  mentioned,  refers  to  the  will  latest 
in  date ;  if  there  is,  to  that  of  the  date  expressed.^ 

The  presumptions  pointed  out  yield,  of  course,  to  any  express 

what  is  enjoined  upon  him  by  the  will  Murfield's  Estate,   38  N.  W.  Rep.  (lo.) 

must    be   construed,  prima  facie,   to   be  170. 

upon    condition   that   the   devisee    shall  ^  Murray  v.   Oliver,  6   Ired.  Eq.   55 ; 

also  comply  with  what  may  be  enjoined  Stover  v.    Kendall,    1   Coldw.  557,  500  ; 

upon    him   by  any   codicil":    Tilden    v.  Payne  ?>.  Payne,  18  Cal.291,302;  Jones 

Tilden,  13  Gray,  103,  108.  v.  Shewmaker,  .35  Ga.  151,  156,  approved 

1  Wms.  Ex.  [154],  and  authorities.  in  Burge  v.    Hamilton,  72  Ga.  568;  Ha- 

2  Wms.  Ex.  [212],  with  numerous  ven  r.  Foster,  14  Pick.  534,  540;  York 
English   authorities.  v.   Walker,    12    Mees.    &    W.   591,    599  ; 

3  A  will  revoked  by  a  later  will  may  Cliett  v.  Cliett,  1  Tex.  Unrep.  Cas.  408, 
be  republished  by  a  codicil  executed  with  417  et  seq. ;  Canfield  v.  Crandall,  4  Dem. 
the  ceremonies  required  by  the  statute:  111,  119. 

Ruffin,   C.  J  ,    in   Love   v.  Johnston,    12  «  Utterton  v.  Robins,  1  Ad.  &  El.  423, 

Ired.  L.   855,  362;   Jones  v.  Hartley,  2  427. 

Whart.  103, 110,  citing  Havard  v.  Davis,  7  Harvey   v.   Chouteau,    14   Mo.    587, 

2  Binn.  406,  414,  418;   Brown  v.  Clark,  595,  citing  numerous  English  and  Anier- 

77  N.  Y.  369,  374.  lean  authorities. 

*  Rose  V.  Drayton,  4  Rich.  Eq.  260 ;  »  Rogers  v.  Pittis,  1  Add.  .30,  41. 

Burge  V.  Hamilton,  72  Ga.  568,  622,  626 ;  ^  Crosbie  v.  McDoual,  4  Ves.  610,  G15. 
McCurdy  v.  Neall,  42  N-  J.  Eq.  333,  336 ; 


§47 


CODICILS. 


or  plainly  inferable  intention  of  the  testutor.  A  codicil  docs 
not  republish  any  part  of  a  will  which  is  inconsistent  with  the 
codicil;^  but  necessarily  revokes  it  ;'^  nor  does  it  necessarily 
operate  as  if  the  will  had  originally  been  made  at  the  date  of  the 
codicil.^ 


1  Per  Gould,  J.,  in  Simmons  v.  Sim- 
mons, 26  Barb.  68,  75  :  "  Between  a  codi- 
cil and  a  subsequent  will  there  is  tliis 
difference  of  construction :  a  codicil  is  a 
republication  and  ratification  of  so  much 
of  the  prior  will  as  it  does  not  revoke ; 
whereas  a  new  will,  (if  it  provides  for 
a  full  disposition  of  all  the  testator's  es- 
tate,) though  inconsistent  but  in  part 
with  the  former  will,  and  absolutely 
agreeing  in  part,  revokes  tlie  w'hole  of 
the  prior  will,  by  substituting  a  new  and 


last  disposition  for  the  former  one." 
Brant  v.  Willson,  8  Cow.  56,  57  ;  Lar- 
rabee  v.  Larrabee,  28  Vt.  274,  278 ;  Neff's 
Ajipeal,  48  Pa.  St.  501,  507;  Jones  r. 
Jones,  2  Dev.  Eq.  387,  390. 

2  Snowliill  V.  Snowhill,  23  N.  J.  L. 
447,  454. 

8  Per  Lord  Chancellor  Campbell  in 
Hopwood  i;.  Hopwood,  7  H.  L.  Cas.  728, 
740;  Kendall  v.  Kendall,  5  Munf.  272, 
275 ;  Appeal  of  Carl,  106  Pa.  St.  635. 


88  OF   THE   llEVOCATION    OF    WILLS.  §  48 


CHAPTER  VI. 


OF   THE   REVOCATION   OF   WILLS. 


§  48.  Revocation  by  Cancelling,  Obliterating,  Burning,  etc.  —  The 
power  to  revoke  a  will  is  self-evidently  coextensive  with  the 
power  to  make  one.  It  follows  from  the  ambulatory 
revokes  a  quality  of  the  instrument,  that  a  later  will  supplants  a 
former  one  precisely  to  the  extent  to  which  the  later 
is  inconsistent  with  the  former.  It  is  always  the  last  will  and 
testament  which  is  valid. 

But  revocation  may  be  effected  by  other  means,  if  the  testator 
do  nut  wish  a  mere  alteration  or  change  in  the  shape  of  his  testa- 
Revocation  mentary  disposition,  but  an  entire  revocation,  leaving 
tion^or  de-^  it  to  the  law  to  rcgulatc  the  descent  of  his  property, 
struction.  jj^  Quoh.  case  the  revocation  is  accomplished  by  the  can- 
cellation or  destruction  of  the  will,  without  more. 

Revocation  also  follows,  by  operation  of  law,  from  any  subse- 
quent act  of  the  testator  inconsistent  with  the  devise  or  bequest, 
Bv  opeiadon  o^*  from  changcs  in  the  family  relations  of  the  testator 
of  law.  arising  after  the  execution  of  the  will,  unless  by  some 

act  of  the  testator  or  provision  in  the  original  will  the  presump- 
tion of  law  is  rebutted.  Hence  the  subject  of  revocation  of  wills, 
whether  by  act  of  the  testator  himself  or  by  operation  of  law,  is 
the  occasion  of  many  statutory  enactments  and  legal  rules,  and 
occupies  much  space  in  the  books  treating  of  wills. 

The  statutory  enactments  in  most  States  follow  the  language, 
or  re-enact  the  substance,  of  the  English  Statute  of  Frauds  in 
statutorv  rcspcct  of  the  revocation  of  wills  by  act  of  the  testator, 
provisions.  whicli  providcs  that  "no  devise  in  writing  of  any  lands, 
tenements,  or  hereditaments,  nor  any  clause  thereof,  shall  be  revo- 
cable otherwise  than  by  some  other  will  or  codicil  in  writing,  or 
other  writing  declaring  the  same,  or  by  burning,  cancelling,  tear- 
ing, or  obliterating  the  same  by  the  testator  himself,  or  in  his 
presence  and  by  his  direction  or  consent,"  etc.^ 

1  29  Car.  II.  c.  3,  §  6. 


§48 


REVOCATION   BY   CANCELLING,   BURNING,    ETC. 


89 


No  revoca- 
tion by  testa- 
tor witliout 
intention  to 
revoke. 


To  effect  a  revocation  by  cancelling,  burning,  etc.,  it  must,  of 
course,  be  done  with  the  intention  and  for  the  purpose  of  revok- 
ing. This  is  so  expressed  in  the  statutes  of  most 
States  authorizing  a  revocation  in  this  method.  If, 
therefore,  the  act  of  destruction  was  not  committed 
animo  revocandi,  but  by  accident,^  mistake,^  during  a 
fit  of  insanity,^  or  where  the  destruction  is  the  effect  of  handling 
or  wear,-*  it  is  not  the  testator's  act,  and  does  not  affect  the  valid- 
ity of  the  will  destroyed,  if  its  contents  can  be  ascertained.^  For 
the  same  reason,  a  revocation  obtained  by  undue  influence  on  the 
mind  of  the  testator  is  inoperative,  and  leaves  the  will  in  full 
force.^  Nor  is  the  intention,  purpose,  or  desire  to  re- 
voke an  existing  will  of  any  effect  on  its  validity, 
unless  the  desire  is  carried  into  effect  by  some  act 
done,  recognized  in  law  as  a  sufficient  indication  of 
the  testator's  will." 

Cancellation  by  the  testator  raises  the  presumption  cancellation 
that  the  act  was  animo  revocandi,^  which  may,  however,  on^^eiuioa^ 
be  rebutted  by  proof  of  circumstances  inconsistent  with   *°  revoke. 


Nor  by  mere 
intention, 
witiiout 
act   of  revo- 
cation. 


1  Biirtonshaw  v.  Gilbert,  1  Cowp.  49, 
52 ;  Giles  v.  Warren.  L.  R.  2  P.  &  D.  40L 

2  Burns  v.  Burns,  4  Serg.  &,  R.  295. 

8  An  insane  person  can  have  no  ani- 
mus revocandi:  Lang's  Estate,  tj5  Cal.  19. 
Smith  V.  Wait,  4  Barb.  28,  30;  Ford  v. 
Ford,  7  Humph.  92,  102;  Forman's  Will, 
54  Barb.  274,  298 ;  Forbing  v.  Weber,  99 
lud.  588. 

4  1  Redf.  on  Wills,  314,  pi.  21,  citing 
Bigge  t'.  Bigge,  3  Notes  of  Cas.  601,  603 ; 
Clarke  i;.  Scijjps,  2  Hob.  563. 

^  As  to  the  proof  necessary  to  estab- 
lish a  lost  will,  see  post,  §  221.  Rhodes 
V.  Vinson,  9  Gill,  169.  Proof  of  the 
whole  contents  must  be  clear  and  satis- 
factory :  Davis  v.  Sigourney,  8  Mete. 
(.Mass.)  487  ;  Jaques  v.  Horton,  70  Ala. 
238,  245. 

«  Rich  V.  Gilkey,  73  Me.  595,  601. 

'  Runkle   v.    Gates,    11    Ind.   95,   99 
Clark  V.  Smith,  34  Barb.  140,  142  et  seq. 
Gains    v.    Gains,    2   A.    K.    Marsh.  190 
Means  v.  Moore,  3  McC.  282,  286 ;  Hoitt 
V.   Hoitt,  63   N.   H.  475,  495;  Wright  v. 
Wright,  5  Ind.  389 ;  Delafield  i-.  Parish, 
25  N  Y.  9,  21 ;  Boyd  v.  Cook,  3  Leigh, 


32;  Blanchard  v.  Blanchard,  .32  Vt.  62, 
64;  Hise  v.  Fincher,  10  Ired.  L.  139; 
Mundy  v.  Mundy,  15  N.  J.  Eq.  290 ; 
WoodfiU  V.  Patton,  76  Ind.  575,  579. 
Hence  it  is  not  a  sufficient  revocation 
for  the  testator  to  write  upon  the  will 
"  I  revoke  this  will,"  and  signing  his 
name  thereto  with  the  date,  unless  such 
writing  is  also  attested  by  witnesses,  as 
required  for  the  execution  of  wills  :  Will 
of  Ladd,  60  Wise.  187.  So  there  is  no 
revocation  althougli  a  devisee  kill  the 
testator  in  order  to  prevent  it ;  such 
devisee  takes  under  the  will :  Preston  v. 
Palmer,  42  Hun,  368 ;  the  cancelling  of 
two  parts  of  a  triplicate  will  is  however 
a  revocation  of  the  whole  will  :  Biggs  v. 
Angus,  3  Dem.  93;  and  the  destruction, 
amino  revocandi,  of  one  of  the  two  origi- 
nals of  a  will  executed  in  duplicate, 
there  being  no  proof  that  the  other  was 
in  the  possession  of  the  maker,  destroys 
the  whole  will :  Asinari  v.  Bangs,  3  Dem. 
385. 

8  Smock  V.  Smock,  11  N.  J.  Eq.  156, 
citing  numerous  English  authorities. 


90 


OF   THE   REVOCATION    OF   WILLS. 


§48 


Declarations    guc]^  intention,^  and  the  declarations  of  the  testator  at 

competent  to  i  .  <.      ,  mi 

explain  can-  any  time  after  the  making  of  the  will  are  competent 
But^ioTto  fo^'  t^^^^  purpose.2  But  where  the  statute  provides  the 
contravene  a   u^auner  in  which  a  will  may  be  revoked,  that  manner 

statutory  •' 

provision.  must  be  pursucd ;  ^  and  the  drawing  of  a  line  over  the 
signature,  neither  obliterating  it  nor  rendering  it  illegible,  has 
been  held  not  to  constitute  a  destruction  of  the  will  under  a  stat- 
ute authorizing  a  revocation  by  cancelling,  the  cancellation  being 
witnessed  in  the  same  manner  as  the  making  of  a  new  will,*  and 
in  such  case  the  declarations  of  the  testator  are  not  admissible  to 
prove  a  revocation.^ 

So  the  cancellation  of  a  will,  or  of  part  of  a  will, 
made  with  the  intention  to  execute  a  new  will,  (as 
a  step  in  the  process  of  effecting  a  change  in  the 
testamentary  disposition  already  made,)  will  not  be 
deemed  a  revocation,  if  the  purpose  of  the  testator 
fails.6  This  principle  is  stated  by  Williams  to  have  resulted  in 
"  the  doctrine  of  dependent  relative  revocations,  in  which  the  act 
of  cancellino;,  etc.,  being  done  with  reference  to  another 

Dependent  &?  ?  &  _   _ 

relative  act,  meant  to  be  an  effectual  disposition,  will  be  a  rev- 

ocation or  not,  according  as  the  relative  act  be  effica- 
cious or  not."  "^     It  has  been  extended  to  include,  as  inoperative, 


Cancellation 
as  a  step 
toward  a  new 
will  which 
fails,  deemed 
no  revo- 
cation. 


1  Goods  of  Colberg,  2  Curt.  8-32  ; 
Perkes  v.  Perkes,  3  B.  &  Al.  489 ;  Idley 
V.  Bowen,  11  Wend.  227,  236;  Wolf  v. 
Bolinger,  62  111.  368,  372. 

2  Patterson  v.  Hit-key,  32  Ga.  156, 
160;  Lawyer  v.  Snnith,  8  Mich.  411,  423; 
Collagan  v.  Burns,  57  Me.  449,  458  et  aeq. ; 
Tynan  v.  Paschall,  27  Tex.  286,  300; 
Johnson's  Will,  40  Conn.  587  ;  Youndt  v. 
Youndt,  8  Grant's  Cas.  140  ;  Law  v.  Law, 
83  Ala.  432,  434,  holding  such  evidence 
admissible  to  show  a  revocation  of  the 
whole,  but  not  of  a  part  of  the  will,  and 
commenting  on  the  difference  between  the 
Alabama  and  the  English  statute. 

3  Gay  V.  Gay,  60  Iowa,  415,  citing 
Wright  V.  Wright,  5  Ind.  391  ;  Runkle 
V.  Gates,  11  Ind.  95;  Blanchard  v.  Blan- 
chard,  32  Vt.  62  ;  Gains  v.  Gains,  2  A.  K. 
Marsh.  190. 

*  Gay  V.  Gay,  supra,  citing  English 
authorities. 

5  Ibid.,  citing  Jackson  v.  Kniffen,  2 
Johns.   31,   and   other  authorities. 


6  "  It  is  fairly  inferable,  where  the 
act  of  cancellation  is  associated  with  an- 
other upon  which  it  is  dependent,  and 
which  fails  of  effect,  the  prima  facie  pre- 
sumption of  an  intent  to  revoke  is  re- 
butted, and  another  presumption  arises, 
'  that  the  cancellation  or  obliteraton 
would  not  have  been  done,  but  in  sub- 
serviency to  the  different  testamentary 
disposition,  which  has  failed'":  Per 
Smith,  C.  J.,  in  Hairston  v.  Hairston,  30 
Miss.  276,  305  ;  Onions  v.  Tyrer,  2  Vern. 
741  ;  Hyde  v.  Hyde,  1  Eq.  Cas.  Air.  409 ; 
Johnson  v.  Brailsford,  2  Nott  &  McC. 
272,  276  ;  Pringle  v.  McPherson,  2  Brev. 
279,289;  Wolf  v.  Bollinger,  62  111.  3ii8, 
373;  Wilbourn  v.  Shell,  59  Miss.  205, 
207 ;  Williams,  C.  J.,  in  Youse  v.  Formnn, 
5  Bush,  337,  345;  Dower  v.  Seeds,  28  W. 
Va.  113,  138. 

'  Wms.  Ex.  [148],  with  English  and 
American  authorities  by  Perkins ;  and 
see  1  Jarm.  on  Wills,  *135,  and  Bigelow's 
note  (3)  with  numerous  American  cases. 


§  48  REVOCATION    BY   CANCELLING,    BURNING,    ETC.  91 

cancellations  made  under  the  influence  of  a  mistake  in    .    ,.  , 

Applied  to 

point  of  law,  as  well  as  in  point  of  a  fact.^  This  seems  cancuiiaiion 
to  carry  the  doctrine  as  far  as  the  most  lenient  indul-  take  of  law 
gencc  and  anxious  solicitude  to  give  effect  to  the  inten- 
tion of  testators,  unlearned  in  the  law  or  misled  as  to  facts,  can 
safely  permit.  It  is  obvious,  that  to  ignore  a  plain  act  of  cancella- 
tion upon  the  ground  that  the  testator  coupled  it  with  an  intention 
to  make  some  other  will,  is  to  destroy  the  testator's  right  and  to 
ignore  his  will ;  for  it  is  none  the  less  his  will  to  undo  what  he 
has  done  in  a  former  will,  because  he  contemplates  giving  a  dif- 
ferent effect,  by  some  later  action,  to  the  direct  consequence  of  a 
simple  revocation.  If  a  testator,  for  instance,  coming  to  the  con- 
clusion that  the  legatee  in  his  will  is  undeserving  of  his  bounty, 
contemplates  the  substitution  of  some  other  person  as  legatee,  but 
cancels  his  will  before  determining  who  such  person  shall  be,  it 
would  not  only  be  making  a  will  for  the  testator,  if  the  cancella- 
tion were  held  inoperative,  but  to  make  such  a  will  contrary  to 
the  expressed  intention  of  the  testator.  The  testator,  by  his  act 
of  cancellation,  has  substituted  the  heir  at  law,  or  it  may  be  a 
residuary  legatee,  for  the  legatee  whose  legacy  he  has  cancelled  ; 
but  if  the  cancellation  is  inoperative,  the  legacy  will  go  to  the 
very  person  to  whom  the  testator  intends  it  not  to  iro.  „ 

■'    '  _  ^  ^        But  not  in 

Hence  American  courts  will  not  refuse  to  give  effect  America,  where 

11,  ■  1  .11.  .  „  ,.  tlie  act  of  caQ- 

to  cancellations  made  with  the  intention  of  making  ceiiation  is 
some  other  will,  provision,  or  codicil,  where  the  can-  '^°°^P'^^' 
ceiiation  constitutes  a  complete  act  by  itself.^ 

The  presumption  of   destruction    animo   revocandi  arises  also 
when  a  will,  which  has  been  traced  to  the  testator's  wiii  not  found 
possession,  cannot  be  found   after   his   death    or   is  deaThpresumed 
found  torn ;    but  this  presumption  may  be  rebutted  *°  ^^  revoked. 
by  evidence   showing  a  contrary  or  different  purpose.^ 

1  Perrott  v.  Perrott,  14  East,  423,  438  cident,  but  with  the  intention  of  making 
et  seq. ;  and  see  cases  cited  in  Wms.  on  a  new  will ;  Hairston  v.  Hairston,  30 
Ex.  [153],  note  7i.  Miss.  276. 

2  Banks  v.  Banks,  65  Mo.  4-32,  434;  3  Minor  v.  Guthrie,  4  S.  W.  R.  (Ky.) 
Bohanon  v.  Walcot,  1  How.  (Miss.)  336,  179;  Minkier  v.  Minkler,  14  Vt.  125, 
339;  Semmes  t>.  Semmes,  7  Har.  &  J.  127;  Beaumont  v.  Keim,  50  Mo.  28,  29; 
388,  390,  distinguisiiing  between  tlie  Appling  r  Eades,  1  Gratt.  286;  Holland  y. 
cancellation  of  a  will  under  the  mis-  Ferris,  2  Rradf.  334  ;  Weeks  v.  McBeth, 
taken  supposition  that  the  testator  had  14  Ala.  474  ;  Dawson  v.  Smith,  3  Hou.'st. 
made  another  valid  will,  and  a  delibei-  335,  341  ;  Legare  v.  A.<lie,  1  Bay,  464 ; 
ate  cancellation  without  mistake  or  ac-  Clark's   Will,   Tuck.  445,  452;    Baptist 


92  OP   THE    REVOCATION    OF    WILLS.  §  48 

The  destruction  of  a  will  by  a  person  other  than  the  testator, 
Destruction  or  without  liis  knowledge  and  direction,  does  not,  of 
otSof"no^  course,  affect  the  legal  validity  of  such  instrument, 
effect  ^  fortiori^  if  the  destruction  took  place  after  his  de- 

cease ;  1  but  this  can  be  true  only  if  the  will  can  be  established  in 
its  original  form.     If,  for  instance,  a  legacy  be  oblit- 

if  its  original  *=  '        .  ,  ,  , .  '         . 

provisions  can  cratcd  by  a  straugcr,  or  inserted  by  interlineation,  or 
8  prove  .  changed  in  effect  or  amount,  and  the  original  legacy 
be  known,  it  may  be  proved  as  it  originally  stood.  If  made  by 
the  legatee  himself,  it  will  avoid  the  legacy  so  altered,  but  it  can- 
not destroy  other  bequests,  either  to  such  legatee  or  other  persons.^ 
„     ,    „  It  is  enacted  by  the  statutes  of  some  States,  that  revo- 

Proof  of  testa-  •'  .  '      . 

tor's  direction    catiou,  where  it  is  done  by  the  burning,  tearing,  etc. 

if  will  is  torn,  ,    ,  ,-,  •        ji  j-    j_i 

or  burned,  etc.  01  the  Will  by  othcr  pcrsous  m  the  presence  oi  the 
y  ot  ers.  tcstator  and  by  his  direction,  must  be  proved  by  at 
least  two  witnesses  ;  ^  where  there  is  no  statutory  provision  to 
such  effect,  it  must  clearly  appeai*  in  evidence  that  the  act  of  can- 
cellation, if  done  by  a  person  other  than  the  testator,  was  in  his 
presence,  and  by  his  direction.^ 

It  is  not  essential,  however,  that  the  destruction,  obliteration, 
or  cancellation  be  entire  or  complete ;  if  it  be  as  complete  as  was 
in  the  power  of  the  testator,  it  is  sufficient  to  operate 
suificientto       as  a  revocation.^     Where  a  testator  directs  the  de- 
revo  e.  gtruction  of  his  will,  and  delivers  it  to  some  person  for 

this  purpose,  who  fraudulently  preserves  it,  the  fraud  may  be 

Church  V.  Eobbarts,  2  Pa.  St.  110 :   Fos-  able  "  :    Smith  v.  Fenner,  1  Gall.  C.  C. 

ter's  Appeal,  87  Pa.  St.  67,75;  Scogjjins  ?;.  170,    175.     See   also    Malin   v.    Malin,   1 

Turner,  98  N.  0.135;  Hamersley  y   Lock-  Wend.   625,  659;   Jackson   v.  Malin,   15 

man,  2  Dem.  524,  533  ;  Jaques  v.  Horton,  Johns.  293,  297  ;  Doane  v.  Hadlock,  42 

76  Ala.  238, 245 ;  Bauskett  v.  Keitt,  22  S.  C.  Me.  72,  76.     The  case  In  re   Wilson,  8 

187  ;  Collyer  v.  Collyer.  110  N.  Y.  481.  Wis.  171,  179,  apparently  contradicting 

1  1  Jarm.  on  Wills,  *130,  citing  Haines  this  doctrine,  by  avoiding  a  will  in  toio 
V.  Haines,  2  Vern.  441  ;  the  destruction  because  it  was  altered  by  the  legatee, 
in  this  case  consisted  in  tearing  the  will  will  upon  examination  he  found  to  rest  on 
into  small  pieces,  which  were  picked  up  agreement  of  counsel,  because  this  point 
and  sewed  together  agnin.  was   not   material  in   their  case.      Com- 

2  "  The  object  is  to  carry  the  will  into  pare  the  remarks  of  Cole,  J.,  p.  179,  with 
effect,  and  not  merely  to  attend  to  the  those  of  tiie  judge  at  ni«p?-»/s,  p.  177. 
merits  or  demerits  of   those  who  claim  ^  So  in   Alabama,  Arkansas,  Califor- 
under   it.      If  any    alteration    in   a    will  nia,  Iowa,  and  New  York. 

would  avoid  it,  the  executor  before  pro-  *  Clingan   v.   Mitcheltree,  31    Pa.   St. 

bate  miglit,  by  such  alteration,  destroy  25.  .33.     See  Dower  v.  Seeds,  28  VV.  Va. 

the   rights  of    all   third    persons,    which  113,  138. 
would  be  in  the  highest  degree  unreason-  *  Sweet  v.  Sweet,  1  Redf  451,  454. 


§  49  PARTIAL   REVOCATION    BY   CANCELLING,    ETC.  93 

proved  by  parol  ;  and  if  the  revocation  by  parol  be  authorized  \)y 
the  law,  this  will  constitute  a  revocation. ^ 

§  '1 9.  Partial  Revocation  by  Cancelling,  Obliterating,  etc.  —  A  will 
may  be  revoked  in  part  by  cancelling  or  obliterating  a  portion 
thereof,  leaving  the  unoblitcratcd  portions  in  force.^  , 

^  '■  Revocation  of 

Even  where  a  portion  of  the  will  is  cut  out  of  it,  with  apart  by  ob- 
the  intention  of   annulling   such   part   only,  the   re- 
mainder, if  enough  is   left  to  constitute  an  intelligible  disposi- 
tion, is  a  valid  will.^    In  some  States,  however,  a  different  rule  is 
established  by  statute.*    Thus  it  is  held  in  Alabama^  that  a  will 
cannot  be  partially  revoked,  by  a  cancellation  of  the  name  of  one 
or  more  legatees,  without  codicil,  or  new  signing  and  attestation.^ 
So  in  New  York  there  can  be  no  partial  revocation  by  cancellation.'^ 
Interlineations  do  not  affect    the  validity  of   a  will, 
whether  they  be  established  by  new  publication  and 
attestation  or  not ;  ^  but  with  respect  to  partial  obliterations,  if 
made  with  the  intention  of  substituting  other  words 

niTi'  ••(■  1      Dependent 

for  those  cancelled,  and  such  mtention  is  frustrated,  relative  can- 
the  same  rule  holds  good  that  is  applied  to  cancella- 
tions with  the  intention  of  making  a  new  will.^     Such  cancella- 
tions are  held  to  constitute  no  revocation.^^ 

It  is  obvious,  however,  that  the  obliteration,  cancellation,  or 
destruction  of  any  essential  formal  part  of  a  will,  without  which 
such  will  would  be  inoperative,  constitutes  a  revoca-  Cancellation  of 
tion  of  the  whole  will ;  such  act  is  inconsistent  with  f"rm  ^"vokes 
any  other  intention  than  that  of  destroying  the  va-  '*^''"^®  ^''^• 

1  Card  V.  Grinman,  5  Conn.  164,  IfiS;  «  See  Code,  1886,  §  1968. 

Smiley  I'.  Gambill,  2  Head,  164;  Pryor  y.  ^  l^w  v.  Law,   83   Ala.  432,  holdinj;: 

Coggin,  17  Ga.  444,  448  ;  Wiiite  v.  Casten,  the  declarations  of  the  testator  competent 

1  .Jones  L.  193;  see  authorities,  sup7-a,  p.  to  sliow  that  he  intended  tiie  cancellation 

89,  note  7.  to  revoke  the  whole  will,  but  inoperative 

■^  Kirkpatrick's  Will,  22  N.  J.  Eq.  463,  for  any  purpose  if  showing  an  intention 

465,  citing  numerous  English  authorities  ;  to  partially  revoke. 

Cogbill  V.  Cogbill,  2  Hen.  &  Munf.  407,  ■  Lovell  v.  Quitman,  88  N.  Y.  377,  381, 

507  ;  Bigelow  v.   Gillott,   123  Mass.   102,  overruling  McPherson  v.  Clark,  3  Bradf. 

106;  McPherson   v.   Clark,  3  Bradf.  92,  92. 

97,  reviewing  numerous  cases,  but  over-  8  Dixon's   Appeal,    55    Pa.    St.    424, 

ruled  in  Lovell  v.  Quitman,  88  N.  Y.  377,  427  ;  Doane  v.  Hadlock,  42  Me.  72,  75 ; 

holding  that  cancellation  is  not  valid  un-  Wheeler  v.  Bent,  7  Pick.   61 ;  Wells   v. 

less  executed  and  attested  anew  ;  Bockes,  Wells,  4  T.  B.  Mon.  152,  155. 

J.,  dissenting  in  Lovell  v.  Quitman,  25  ^  See  ante,  §  48. 

Hun,  5.S7,  539;  Cliinmark's  Estate,  Myr.  ^'^  McPherson   v.   Clark,  3  Bradf.  92; 

128,  129.  Short  ••.  Smith,  4  East,*  419;  Jackson  v. 

3  Brown's  Will,  1  B.  Mon.  56,  67.  Hollnway,  7  Johns.  394,  398;  Bethell  v. 

*  See /n/)a,  referring  to  English  statute.  Moore,  2  Dev.  &  B.  L.  311,  316. 


9-4  OF   THE   REVOCATION   OF   WILLS.  §  49 

lidity  of  tlie  instrument  in  its  entirety.''  So  the  tearing  of  a 
seal  from  a  will,  although  a  seal  is  not  essential  to  its  valid- 
ity, is  deemed  a  revocation,  because  the  testator,  deeming  it  essen- 
tial, indicated  his  intention  of  destroying  the  will  by  tearing  off 
the  seal .2  And  where  the  signature  is  cut  out  of  a  will  atiimo 
revocandi,  pasting  it  into  its  former  place  will  not  revive  the  will.-^ 
But  drawing  a  scroll  over  the  signature  so  as  not  to  obliterate 
it  nor  render  it  illegible  was  held  in  Iowa  not  to  constitute  a  revo- 
cation, unless  the  cancellation  is  witnessed  in  the  same  manner  as 
a  new  will.* 

Since  all  interlineations  and  additions  to  a  will  not  contained 

in  it  at  the  time  of  execution  and  attestation  depend  for  their 

validity  upon  being  themselves  published  and  attested, 

Presumptions  j      i  o 

as  to  interiiii-  it  is  important  to  ascertam  whether  they  were  made 
a'aditious.  before  or  after  attestation.^  The  ordinary  presump- 
tions in  cases  of  deeds  and  other  instruments  are  said 
not  to  apply  to  wills.^  It  is  held  in  Pennsylvania,  that  alterations 
in  the  testator's  handwriting  are  presumed  to  have  been  made 
before  its  execution ;  or,  if  afterward,  and  there  be  codicils,  then 
before  the  execution  of  the  last  codicil;^  and  in  New  Hampshire, 
that  they  have  been  made  after  execution  ;  ^  but  more  usually, 
in  respect  of  instruments  generally,  courts  incline  to  the  view  of 
no  presumption,  imposing  upon  the  propounder  of  the  instrument 
the  burden  of  explaining  all  suspicious  alterations.^ 

In  England,  where  the  statute  regulating  wills  ^^  avoids  all 
erasures  and  interlineations  not  specially  signed  by  the  testator 
and  attested  by  the  witnesses,  the  presumption  is  held  to  be,  inde- 
pendent of  the  statute,  that  erasures  and  interlineations  were 
made  after  execution,  and  are  therefore  void  unless  proved  by 
some  evidence  to  have  been  made  before.^ ^ 

1  Evans's  Appeal.  58  Pa.  St.  238,  244  ;  ^  Linnard's  Appeal,  93  Pa.   St.  313  ; 
Semmes  v.  Semmes,  7  Har.  &  J.  388,  390  ;  Wikoff's  Appeal,  15  Pa.  St  281. 
Woodfill  V.  Patton,  76  Ind.  575,  583  ;  Sue-  »  Burnhani  v.  Ayer,  35  N.  H.  351,  354. 
cession    of  Miih,   35  La.   An.   394,  397  ;  ^  North  River  Meadow  Co.  v.  Shrews- 
Goods  of  Morton,  L.  R.  12  Prob.  D.  141.  bury  Church,  22  N.  J.  L.  424  ;  Millikin  v. 

■^  Avery  v.  Pixley,  4  Mass.  460,  462  ;  Martin,  66  111.  13  ;  Smith  v  United  States, 

and  a  fortiori  where  a  seal  is  required ;  2  Wall.  219,  232 ;   Bailey  v.  Taylor,  11 

Wiiite's  Will,  25  N.  J.  Eq.  501.  Conn.  531,  534. 

3  Bell  V.  Fothergill,  L.  R.  2  P.  &  D.  i"  1  Vict.  c.  26,  §  1. 

148.  11  Cooper    v.   Bockett,    10    Jur.    931, 

*  Gay  r.  Gay,  60  Iowa,  415.  986;  Simmons  v.  Rudall,  1  Sim.   (x.  s.) 

5  Wilson's  Will.  8  Wis.  171.  180.  115,  136  ;  Burgoyne  v.  Showier,  1  Rob. 

6  1  Redf.  on  Wills,  315,  pi.  23.  6,  13 


§  50  REVOCATION    BY    SUBSEQUENT    WILL.  95 

§  50.  Revocation  by  Subsequent  "Will.  —  It  is  lisual  to  insert  in 
wills,  sometimes  even  where  the  testator  has  made  no  prior  will, 
a  clause  revoking  all  former  wills.     But  whether  there 

....         ,      .  J.1      J.  Revoking  will 

be  an  express  revocation  or  not,  it  is  obvious  that  a  must  be  exe- 
will  executed  under  the  formalities  prescribed  by  stat-  game  formaii- 
utc  to  authorize  a  valid  disposition  of  the  property  Jif^'^^^X'^ 
which  it  devises  or  bequeaths  must  operate  to  revoke 
and  annul  all  previous  inconsistent  testamentary  dispositions.^ 
And  it  may  hapi)en  that  a  will  may  effectually  revoke  a  prior 
will,  although  itself  be  inoperative  as  a  dispositive  instrument ;  as 
where  a  will  executed  and  attested  with  the  necessary  formalities 
to  bequeath  personal  estate,  but  not  to  devise  realty,  revokes  a 
prior  will  disposing  of  personal  property,  and  devises  real  estate ; 
such  will  is  sufficient  to  revoke  the  former  will,  but  not  sufficient 
to  devise  real  estate.  Or  where  a  testator,  having  devised  prop- 
erty to  a  person,  subsequently  devises  it  to  another  person  who  is 
incapable  of  taking  ;  the  devise  in  the  latter  will  must  fail,  but  it 
is  sufficient  to  revoke  the  former  devise.^  Or  a  will  may  be  made 
for  the  sole  purpose  of  revoking  a  former  will.^  It  follows  from 
what  lias  been  said,  that,  to  constitute  a  sufficient  revoking  will,  it 
must  be  executed  and  attested  with  the  formalities  prescribed  by 
the  statute  for  the  testamentary  disposition  of  the  class  of  prop- 
erty disposed  of  in  the  former  will;^  and  an  instrument  pur- 
porting to  be  a  will,  containing  a  revocatory  clause,  cannot  be 
offered  in  evidence  as  a  revocation  merely,  without  probate 
thereof.^  Thus  a  verbal  will  is  insufficient  to  revoke  a  written 
will,  unless  the  statute  authorize  the  disposition  of  the  subject  of 
the  written  will  by  parol ;  and  where  the  statute  creates  a  differ- 
ence in  the  execution  and  attestation  between  wills  of  realty  and 
of  personalty,  a  will  executed  with  the  necessary  formalities  for 
one,  but  not  for  the  other  of  these  classes,  is  not  sufficient  to 

1  Ante,  §  48 ;  Reese  v.  Probate  Court,  so  as  to  authorize  proof  of  the  intention 

9  R.  I.  434.  of  tlie  testator  to  revoke  his  will :  Davis 

■2  Hairston  v.  Hairston,  30  Miss.  276,  v.  Kin^,  89  N.  C.  441. 
302;  Canfield  i>.  Crandall,  4  Dem.  111.  ^  Stickney   v.   Hammond,    1-38   Mass. 

a  1  Redf.  on  Wills,  346.  116,  120 ;  Sevvall  v.  Robbins,  139   Mass. 

*  Caenian  v.  Van  Harke,  33  Kan.  .3.33,  104,  1G7.     So  where  the  probate  of  a  will 

336      In  North  Carolina  it  was  decided  is  revoked,  declaring  it  inoperative,  such 

that  the  adoption  of  an  illegitimate  child  will  cannot  be  relied  on  as  a  revocation 

by  proceedings   under  the    statute  does  of  a  former  will,  even  by  heirs  who  were 

not  itself  operate  to  revoke  a  former  will,  not  parties  to  the  proceedings  to  set  aside 

nor  can  the  petition  in  such  proceeding  such  subsequent  will:    Dower  v.   Seeds, 

be  looked  upon  as  a  testamentary  paper,  28  W.  Va.  113,  133. 


96  OF   THE   REVOCATION    OF    WILLS.  §  51 

revoke  a  will  of  the  other  class.^  In  England  and  in  some  of 
the  American  States  this  principle  is  enacted  by  statute.^ 

What  has  been  said  of  wills  has  self-evidently  full  application 
to  codicils,^  An  unexecuted  codicil  has  no  more  effect  to  revoke 
a  duly  executed  will,  than  an  unexecuted  will  could  have  ;*  and  a 
properly  executed  codicil  revokes  so  much  of  previous  wills  as  is 
inconsistent  with  the  dispositions  made  in  the  codicil.'' 

§  51.  Effect  of  Subsequent  upon  Prior  Wills.  —  A  will  or  codi- 
cil containing  a  revocatory  clause  sufficiently  attested,  together 
Will  mav  be  "^^'i^li  ^^^w  testamentary  dispositions,  revokes  the  prior 
valid  to  revoke  will,  whether  its  owu  dispositious  are  valid  or  not;^ 

and  invalid  as  ™    .         , 

to  new  disposi-  if  not  Sufficiently  attested  as  a  revoking  will,  but  valid 
as  to  some  or  all  of  its  testamentary  dispositions,  it 
revokes  all  former  dispositions  pro  tanto ;  "^  but  if  its  revocatory 
clause  be  valid,  and  all  other  dispositions  invalid,  its  effect  will 
be  to  render  the  testator  intestate,  as  if  he  had  made  no  will  at 
all.^  But  where  the  principle  of  dependent  relative  revocation  is 
applicable,^  that  is,  if  the  revocation  is  conditional,  dependent 
upon  the  efficacy  of  the  attempted  new  disposition,  and  that  fails, 
the  revocation  also  fails,  leaving  the  prior  will  in  full  force. ^^  But 
it  should  be  remembered  that  this  principle  does  not  apply  where 
the  new  devise  fails,  not  from  the  infirmity  of  the  instrument, 
but  from  the  incapacity  of  the  devisee ;  ^^  nor  where  the  testator 
is  aware  of  the  insufficiency  of  the  new  disposition.^^ 

1  Reid  V.  Borland,  14  Mass.  208;  Hoi-  158,  164  ;  the  specific  devise  in  a  codicil 
lingshead  v.  Sturgis,  21  La.  An.  450,  hold-  revokes  a  power  to  sell  the  same  land 
ing,  as  many  of  the  cases  do,  that  the  act  conferred  by  the  will :  Derby  v.  Derby, 
by  which  a  testamentary  disposition  is  4  R.  I.  414,  429. 

revoked   must  be   made   in    one  of   tlie  ^  Newton  v.  Newton,  12  Ir.  Ch.  118, 

forms    prescribed    for    testaments,    and  124,  130 ;  Brown  v.  Brown,  8  El.  &  Bl. 

clothed  with  the  same  formalities;  Vin-  875,885.     See  Biggs  t?.  Angus,  3  Dem.  93. 

ing  V.   Hall,  40  Miss    83,  107;  Will  of  9  yl»te,  §  48. 

Ladd,  60  Wis.   187  ;  Barry  v.  Brown,  2  '^'^  "  The  purpose  to  revoke  being  con- 

Dem.  .309.  sidered  to  be  not  a  distinct  independent 

2  1  Vict.  c.  26,  §  22.  intention,  but  subservient  to  the  purpose 

3  See  ante,  §  47.  of  making  a  new  disposition  of  the  prop- 
*  Heise  v.  Heise,  31  Pa.  St.  246,  249  ;     erty  ;  the  testator  meaning  to  do  the  one 

Magoohan's  Appeal,  117  Pa.  St.  238.  so  far  only  as  he  succeeds  in  doinj;  the 

5  Jones   V.   Earle,   1    Gill,    395,    400;  other":  1  Jarm.  on  Wills,  *169 ;    Barks- 
Boyle  V.  Parker,  3  Md.  Ch.  42,  44  ;  Rei-  dale  v.  Barksdale,  12  Leigh,  535,  540. 
chard's  Appeal,  116  Pa.  St.  2.32.  ^  1  Jarm.  on  Wills,  *169,  citing  Eng- 

6  Smith  V.  McChesney,  15  N.  J.  Eq.  lish  cases;  also  Quinn  v.  Butler,  L.  R. 
359,  .362 ;  Cunningham  v.  Somerville,  36  6  Eq  Cas.  225,  227  ;  Goods  of  Gentry, 
N.  W.  (Minn.)  269.  L.  R.  3  P.  &  D.  80,  83. 

''  Boudinot  V.  Bradford,  2   Dall.   266,         12  See  ante,  §  48. 
268;   Nelson  v.  McGiffert,  8  Barb.   Ch. 


§  51  EFFECT   OF   SUBSEQUENT   UPON   PKIOR   WILLS.  97 

The  familiar  quotation  from  Swinburne,  that  no  man  can  die 
with  two  testaments,!  jg  ^q  ]jq  understood  as  applying  to  the 
conclusiveness  of  the  last  testamentary  dispositions  Last  will  may 
made  by  the  testator;  for  "any  number  of  instru-  ^^"ccSfve'ini" 
mcnts,  whatever  be  their  relative  date,  or  in  whatever  sfuments. 
form  they  may  be  (so  as  they  be  all  clearly  testamentary),  may 
be  admitted  to  probate  as  together  containing  the  last  will  of 
the  deceased."  ^  A  subsequent  will  revokes  only  so  much  of  a 
former  will  as  is  inconsistent  with  the  last  instrument;^  if,  there- 
fore, the  later  or  latest  will  dispose  of  the  whole  of  a  testator's 
estate,  all  former  wills  arc  thereby  revoked  ;  "*  but  if,  in  the  ab- 
sence of  an  express  revocation,  a  partial  disposition  of  the  estate 
is  thereby  made,  consistent  with  the  dispositions  made  in  the 
prior  will  or  wills,  or  with  a  portion  of  them,  they  may  both  or 
all  stand  as  the  last  will  of  the  testator,  to  the  extent  to  which 
the  latter  do  not  exclude  the  former.°  And  where  a  second  will 
appoints  a  fresh  executor,  and  the  wills  are  not  inconsistent,  pro- 
bate may  be  granted  to  both  executors.^  The  old  English  cases 
are  of  little  value  as  authority  on  this  point,  because  the  appoint- 
ment of  an  executor  there  constituted  a  disposition  of  the  whole 
of  the  personal  property  of  the  testator,  the  residue  going  to  the 
executor  appointed  if  not  otherwise  disposed  of ;  and  even  under 
the  statutes  giving  the  residue  to  the  next  of  kin  in  the  absence  of 
its  testamentary  disposition,'  it  belongs  to  the  executor  when  there 
are  no  next  of  kin,  and  the  testator  makes  no  disposition  of  it.^ 

1  "  Concerning  the  making  of  a  latter  v.  Gilbert,  9  Moo.  P.  C.  131,  as  overruling 
testament,  so  large  and  ample  is  the  liberty  Plenty  v  West,  1  Rob.  Ecc.  264,  and 
of  making  testaments,  that  a  man  may,  similar  cases  (holding  that  the  words 
as  oft  as  he  will  make  a  new  testament  "  last  will "  in  a  testamentary  paper 
even  until  the  last  breath  ;  neither  is  there  necessarily  import  a  revocation  of  pre- 
any  cautel  under  the  sun  to  prevent  this  vious  instruments),  and  pronouncing  for 
liberty:  but  no  man  can  die  with  two  the  validity  of  two  wills  offered  for  pro 
testaments,  and  therefore  the  last  and  bate  ;  Goods  of  Graham,  3  Sw.  &  Tr.  69, 
newest  is  of  force  :  so  that  if  there  were  71  ;  Bartholomew's  Appeal,  75  Pa.  St. 
a  thousand  testaments,  the  last  of  all  is  169,  173  ;  Succession  of  Mercer,  28  La. 
the  best  of   all,   and   raaketh   void   the  An.  564. 

former":  Swinb.  pt.  7,  s.  14,  pi.  1.  ^  Goods  of  Leese,  2  Sw.  &  Tr.  442, 

2  Wms.  Ex.  [162].  444. 

8  Brant  v.  Willson,  8  Cow.  56;  Picker-  *  11  Geo.  IV.  and  1  Will.  IV.  c.  40. 

ing  f.  Langdcui,  22  Me.  413,  426.  »  Wms.  Ex.    [1477],  citing  Taylor  u. 

4  Simmons  v.  Simmons,  26  Barb.  68,  Haygarth,  14  Sim.  8,  15  (but  in  this  case 

75;  In  re  Fisher,  4  Wis.  254,264.  the    Chancellor   directed   the    residue   of 

6  Price  V.  Maxwell,  28  Pa.  St.  23,  38 ;  personal  property  to  vest  in  the  crown  in 

Lemage  v.  Goodban,  L.  U.  1  P.  &  D.  57,  the  absence  of  next  of  kin,  giving  to  the 

61,  in  which  Sir  J.  P.  Wilde  cites  Cutto  executors   the   proceeds   of  sale  of  real 

VOL.  I.  —  7 


98  OF   THE   KEVOCATION   OF   WILLS.  §  51 

Every  will,  therefore,  in  which  an  executor  was  appointed,  consti- 
tuted a  complete  disposition  of  the  testator's  personal  property. 

The  rule,  in  America  at  least,  is  clear,  that  it  is  the  duty  of 
courts  to  give  effect  to  every  part  of  every  will  of  the  testator,  if 
the  several  dispositions  can  he  reconciled ;  the  rule  of  construc- 
tion being  substantially  the  same  where  there  arc  several  wills  to 
be  harmonized,  as  where  there  are  several  clauses  in  the  same 
will,  or  in  a  will  and  codicils.  Subsequent  wills,  indeed,  perform 
the  office  of  codicils.^ 

It  is  held  that  the  revocation  of  a  will  may  be  proved  by  prov- 
ing the  execution  of  a  subsequent  will  by  the  testator,  which  is 
Revocation  by  lost,  and  has  not  been,  therefore,  admitted  to  pro- 
^v'iif  not'^pro-  bate.^  This  rule  is  necessarily  confined  to  cases  where 
duced.  ^|jg  subsequent  will  either  expressly  revokes  the  for- 

mer, or  contains  an  inconsistent  disposition  of  the  whole  estate, 
as  by  appointment  of  an  executor  and  residuary  legatee ;  ^  and 
the  evidence  to  establish  its  execution,  as  well  as  its  inconsist- 
ency with  the  former  will,  should  be  clear  and  satisfactory, 
and,  particularly  if  by  parol,  it  must  be  stringent  and  conclusive.* 
There  can  be  no  revocation  by  a  later  will  of  which  the  con- 
tents are  unknown  ;  the  words  "  this  is  my  last  will "  are  held 
not  to  import  an  inconsistency  of  disposition  between  the  two 
instruments.^ 

As  an  insufficiently  attested  codicil  or  later  will  cannot  operate 
as  a  revocation  of  a  valid  disposition,  so  a  former  will  or  part  of 
Subsequent  be-  ^  ^ill  canuot  be  dccmcd  revoked  by  a  subsequent  be- 
ciem^i  "wonTed  ^^^^^  ^^  imperfectly  worded  as  not  to  admit  of  cer- 
no revocation,  taiuty  of  its  meaning;^  but  a  codicil  directing  that 
in  a  certain  contingency  the  first,  otherwise  the  last,  of  two  prior 

estate);   Russell  v.  Clowes,  2  Coll.   648,  Havard  y.  Davis,  2  Bin  406,417;  and  see 

and  other  autliorities.  as  to  proof  of  lost  wills,  post,  §  221;  also 

1  Price  V.  Maxwell,  28  Pa.  St,  23,  38.  Steele  v  Price,  5  B.  Mon.  58 ;  Kearns  v 

2  In  re  Cunningham,  36  N.  W.  R.  269  ;  Kearns,  4  Harr.  83;  Southworth  v  Adams, 
see  cases  infra.  11  Biss,  256,  262. 

3  Wms.  Ex.  [161],  citing  Helyar  ik  Hel-  ^  Cutto  v.  Gilbert,  supra^  reversing  the 
yar,  1  Cas.  Temp.  Lee,  472;  Jones  v.  doctrine  annoimced  in  Plenty?'.  West,  1 
Murphy,  8  Watts  &  S.  275,  291,  295;  Rob.  Ecc.  264  ;  Hylton  ?■.  Hylton,  1  Gratt, 
Brown  v.  Brown,  8  El.  &  Bl.  876,  885  ;  161,  165 ;  Nelson  v.  McGiffert,  3  Barb.  Ch. 
Legare  v.  Ashe,  1  Bay,  464,  465 ;  Dawson  158,  164. 

V.  Smith,  3Houst.  335,337,339;  Caeman  6  i  Redf.  on  Wills,  356,  pi.  23,  citing 

V.  Van  Harke,  33  Kan.  333,  336.  Goblet  v.  Beechey,  2  Russ.  &  Myl.  624; 

1  Cutto  V.  Gilbert,  9  Moo.  P.  C.  131,  Baldwin  v.  Baldwin,  22  Beav.  413. 
140 ;  1  Redf.  on  Wills,  348,  pi.  9,  citing 


§  o2  EEVIVAL   BY   REVOCATION   OF    A   LATER   WILL.  99 

wills  should  take  effect,  Avas  held  valid,  and  upon  the  happening 
of  the  contingency  the  first  will  and  the  codicil  took  effect 
together.!  Where  the  validity  of  a  later  will  revoking  a  former 
one  is  denied  by  the  projjonent  of  the  first  will,  on  the  ground 
of  incapacity  in  the  testator,  his  declarations  that  he  wished  the 
former  will  to  stand  are  incompetent.^ 

S  52.   Revival  of  a  Prior  by  the  Revocation  of  a  Later  Will.  —  It 
is  a  much  disputed  question  whether  the  revocation  of  a  revoking 
will  restored  the  validity  of  the  will  first  revoked.     It  Revocation  of 
is  so  asserted  upon  the  ground  that  wills,  being  ambu-  a  revoking  will, 
latory  in  their  nature,  cannot  take  effect  before  the  death  of  the 
testator,  and  hence  the  revocation  is  itself  ambulatory,  and  may  be 
cancelled  before  it  becomes  operative.^    In  the  common  ^^,^5  ^^ 
law  courts  of  England  it  was  so  held  as  an  absolute  England, 
proposition,  excluding  all  question  of  intention,  that  the  former  will 
shall  revive,*  while  the  ecclesiastical  courts  inclined  to  a  different 
doctrine,  holding  that  the  presumption  is  against  the  revival  of 
the  prior  will,  and  throwing  the  onus  on  the  party  setting  it  up 
to  rebut  this  presumption.^     A  third  view  was  finally  adopted, 
according  to  which  it  is  regarded  as  a  question  of  intention,  to  be 
collected  from  all  the  circumstances  of  the  case,  unaided   and 
unembarrassed  by  any  legal  presumption,^  until  the  question  Avas 
made  the  subject  of  parliamentary  action  in  the  new  Wills  Act," 
providing  that  no  will  or  codicil,  or  any  part  thereof,  which  shall 
be  in  any  manner  revoked,  shall  be  revived  otherwise  than  by  re- 
execution,  or  by  a  codicil  executed  as  required  by  the  act,  and 
showing  an  intention  to  revive  the  same.     The  language  of  this 
statute,  says  Williams,  is  not  calculated  to  exclude  all  contro- 
versy  on  the  subject.^ 

1  Bradish  v.  McClellan,  100  Pa.  St.  607.  *  Wms.  Ex.  [178],  citing  Gooclright  v. 

2  Wurzell  V.  Beckman,  52  Mich.  478.         Glazier,  4  Burr.  2512,  Harwood  r.  Good- 
8  1  Redf.  on  Wilis,  308,  pi.  12,    citing     right,!  Cowp.  87,  91,and  Moored.  Moore, 

English  cases  and  Colvin  v.  Warford,  "20  1  Pliillim.  406,  419. 

Md.  357.     See  Peck's  Appeal,  50  Conn.  &    Wms.   Ex.    [179],   citing   Moore   v. 

562,  565,  drawing  the  distinction  between  Moore,  supra,  and  the  cases  there  men- 

the   revocatory  effect  of  a   will    which,  tioned. 

being  operative  as  a  written  declaration,  <^  lb.,  citing  Usticlce  v.  Bawden,  2 
accomplishes  the  revocation  as  such,  at  Add.  116;  but  see  Hooton  v.  Head,  3 
once,  and  is  not  itself  ambulatory  or  IMiillim.  26,  .32  ;  Moore  v.  De  La  Torre, 
dependent  upon  the  testator's  death  for  1  Phillim.  375 ;  Wilson  v.  Wilson,  3  Phil- 
its  validity,  and  one  which,  to  become  lim.  543,  554. 
valid,  must  itself  be  a  will  or  codicil,  ex-  '  1  Vict.  c.  26,  §  22. 
ecuted  with  all  the  formalities  required  «  1  Wms.  Ex.  [181];  "  Because  it  was 
for  such  instruments.  put  by  Lord  Mansfield,  in  Goodright  v. 


100 


OF   THE   REVOCATION   OF   WILLS. 


§52 


The  American  States  are  arraigned  on  different  sides  of  the 
question.  Chancellor  Kent  does  not  give  a  decided  opinion  ;i  but 
„  ,     .  Judue  Rcdiield  says,  •■'  The  general  rule  seems  to  be 

KUles    111  ~  J      }  a 

America.  firmly  established  from  an  early  day,  that  a  later  will 

revoked  will  not  prevent  an  earlier  and  inconsistent  one  from 
remaining  in  force  ;  and  it  makes  no  difference  whether  the  later 
will  contained  an  express  clause  of  revocation  or  not."^  His 
authorities,  however,  are  all  English,  except  the  case  of  Colvin  v. 
Warford,  from  Maryland.^  Decisions  to  the  same  effect  in  other 
States  are  not  wanting  ;*  nor  such  as  hold  the  contrary  doctrine.^ 
In  Massachusetts  it  is  held,  as  in  England  before  the  act  of  1  Vict. 
c.  26,  that  it  is  a  question  of  intention ;  and  the  oral  declara- 
tions of  the  testator,  after  the  cancelling  of  a  will,  are  held  ad- 
missible to  show  whether  or  not  he  intended  to  revive  an  earlier 
will.^     So  in  Tennessee.^ 

A  number  of  States  have  incorporated  in  their  statutes  the  pro- 
visions of  the  English  statute  expressly  providing  that  no  will 


Glazier,  that  the  second  will  is  ambula- 
tory till  the  death  of  the  testator.  If  he 
lets  it  stand  till  he  dies,  it  is  liis  will;  if 
he  does  not,  it  is  not  his  will,  and  has  no  ef- 
fect, no  operation  ;  it  is  no  will  at  all,  being 
cancelled  before  his  death.  If,  therefore, 
such  cancellation  totally  prevents  its  oper- 
ation, it  may  be  argued  that  the  previous 
will  remains  valid,  because  it  has  not 
been  in  any  maimer  revoked,  inasmuch 
as  the  subsequent  will  in  its  ambulatory 
state  has  no  effect  whatever."  See  i7ifra, 
p.  101,  n.  2. 

1  "  If  the  first  will  be  not  actually 
cancelled,  or  destroyed,  or  expressly  re- 
voked, on  making  a  second,  and  the 
second  will  be  afterward  cancelled,  the 
first  will  is  said  to  be  revived  "  :  4  Kent 
Comm.  531. 

2  1  Eedf.  on  Wills,  308,  pi.  12. 

3  20  Md.  357. 

*  As  in  Kentucky  :  Linginfetter  i\  Lin- 
ginfetter,  Hardin,  119  ;  Maryland  :  Colvin 
V.  Warford,  supra  ;  New  Jersey  :  Randall 
V.  Beatty,  31  N.  J.  Eq.  643,  645 ;  North 
Carolina  :  (intimated,  but  not  decided  in) 
Marsh  v.  Marsh,  3  Jones  L.  77,  78 ;  Penn- 
sylvania :  Flintham  v.  Bradford,  10  Pa. 
St.  82,  01  ;  Rudy  r.  Ulrich,  69  Pa.  St. 
177,  182  ;  South  Carolina  :  Taylor  v. 
Taylor,  2  Nott  &  McC.  482. 


5  In  Connecticut :  James  v.  Marvin,  3 
Conn.  576.  But  see  Peck's  Appeal,  50 
Conn.  562,  in  which  the  principle  laid 
down  in  James  v.  Marvin  is  attributed  to 
the  statute  authorizing  the  revocation  of 
a  will  by  a  writing  not  executed  with  the 
formalities  of  a  will ;  and  holding  that 
where  the  statute  requires  the  revocation 
(other  than  by  burning,  cancelling,  tear- 
ing, or  obliterating)  to  be  by  "a  later 
will  or  codicil,"  such  later  will  is  neces- 
sarily ambulatory,  and  although  it  con- 
tain a  clause  expressly  revoking  former 
wills,  must  take  effect  as  a  will  before 
the  revoking  clause  can  be  operative  " 
(p.  565).  The  destruction  or  revocation 
of  the  second  will  would  therefore  neces- 
sarily revive,  or  rather  leave  in  force,  the 
first.  Georgia  :  Lively  v.  Harwell,  29 
Ga.  509,  514 ;  Barksdale  v.  Hopkins,  28 
Ga.  332,  340;  Michigan:  Scott  v.  Fink, 
45  Mich.  241,  244;  Stevens  v.  Hope,  52 
Mich.  65,  69 ;  Mississippi :  Bohannon  v. 
Walcott,  1  How.  (Miss.)  336,  339;  New 
York  :  Biggs  v.  Angus,  3  Dem  93  ;  Vir- 
ginia :  Rudisill  v.  Bodes,  29  Gratt.  147. 

6  Pickens  V.  Davis,  134  Mass.  252  ; 
Williams  v.  Williams,  142  Mass.  515. 

T  McClure  v.  McClure,  6  Southw.  R. 
44,  46. 


§  53       INCONSISTENT  DISPOSITION  OF  TESTAMENTARY  GIFT.     101 

revoked  by  a  later  will  shall  be  revived  by  the  destruc-  g^^^^^^^g 
tioii  or  revocation  of  the  later  will  alone.^  Under  these 
statutes  it  was  held,  in  England,  that  there  is  no  way  of  reviving 
a  will  expressly  revoked  by  a  later  will  but  that  of  re-execution, 
(the  destruction  or  revocation  of  the  revoking  instrument  does 
not  constitute  a  re-execution,  and  is  therefore  insufficient,^)  and 
in  some  of  the  American  States,  that  it  may  be  accomplished  by 
an  expressed  intention  to  that  effect.^  In  New  York  a  distinc- 
tion is  drawn  between  an  inconsistent  codicil,  revoking  part  of  the 
Avill  by  implication,  and  the  revocation  by  will :  the  cancellation 
of  the  inconsistent  codicil  leaves  the  will  in  force,  or  revives  the 
part  revoked  by  implication,  while  the  destruction  of  a  revoking 
will  is  not  sufficient  to  revive  the  will  revoked.* 

A  difficulty  is  sometimes  experienced  in  determining  the  revo- 
catory effect  upon  intermediate  codicils  or  wills  of  a  later  codicil, 
republishing  a  former  will.  This  question  is  one  which  must  be 
determined  by  the  intention  of  the  testator,  to  be  gathered  from  all 
the  circumstances  accessible  to  the  judge  of  probate;^  the  indul- 
gence in  artificial  presumptions,  such  as  that,  where  a  testator  by 
a  codicil  confirms  his  will,  the  will  together  with  all  previous  cod- 
icils is  taken  to  be  affirmed,  as  is  in  some  cases  asserted,^  —  or  that 
the  omission  to  mention  a  particular  codicil  in  a  clause  of  repub- 
lication, in  which  prior  codicils  are  mentioned,  constitutes  a  revo- 
cation of  the  codicil  omitted,  as  has  been  held  in  others,'' — seems 
better  calculated  to  mislead  than  to  assist  in  arriving  at  the  testa- 
tor's purpose.^ 

§  53.  Revocation  by  Inconsistent  Disposition  of  the  Testamentary- 
Gift.  —  A  will  once  executed  with  the  formalities  requisite  to  give 

1  For  instance,  in  Alabama,  Arkansas,  235;  In  re  De  La  Saussaj-e,  L.  R.  3  P.  & 
California,  Connecticut,  Georgia,  Indi-  D.  42;  see  also  Wade  v.  Nazer,  1  Rob. 
ana,  Kansas,  Kentucky,  Missouri,  Nevada,  Eccl.  627,  632  ;  Gordon  v.  Lord  Reay,  5 
New  York,  Ohio,  Virginia,  and  West  Sim.  274,  280;  Upfill  i;.  Marsliall,  3  Curt. 
Virginia.  Eccl.  630,  640. 

2  Major  r.  Williams,  3  Curt.  432,  434.  -<  Wikoff's   Appeal,    15   Pa.    St.   281, 
8  Beaumont  v.  Keim,  50  Mo.  28,  20  ;     201 ;  Neff  's  Appeal,  48  Pa.  St.  501 ;  see 

Rudisill  V.  Rodes,   29   Gratt.    147,   148  ;  also  Burton  v.  Newbery,  L.  R.  1  Ch.  D. 

Simmons  v.  Simmons,  26  Barb.  68,  76.  234,  240  ;  Farrar  v.  St.  Catharine's  Col- 

*  In   re  Simpson,  56   How.  Pr.    125,  lege,  L.  R.  16  Eq.  19,  23;  In  re  Reynolds, 

131.  L.  R.  3  Pr.  &  D.  35;  In  re  Hastings,  26 

5  Wikoff 's  Appeal,  15  Pa.  St.,  281,  ap-  L.  T.  R.  (n.  s.)  715. 

proving   Smith  v.  Cunningham,   1  Add.  ^  See,  on  this  subject,  post,   §  56,  on 

448,  455.  the  republication  of  wills. 

6  Green  v.  Tribe,  L.  R.  9  Ch.  D.  281, 


102  OF   THE   REVOCATION    OF    WILLS.  §  53 

r,  c   it  validity  remains  in  force  until  revoked  by  act  of 

Conveyance  of  -^  •' 

subject  of  gift    the  testator.^     The  act  of  revocation,  however,  may 

operates  revo-  n     ,  i  •   i         i    i  • 

cation  although  be  performed  by  the  testator  without  his  conscious 
iftfetimrof'"  intention  to  that  effect,  if  he  does  something  from 
testator.  which  the  law  presumes,  or  infers,  the  animum  re- 

vocandi.  Such  acts,  constituting  an  implied  revocation,  may 
consist  of  a  disposition  of  property  devised  or  bequeathed  in  a 
manner  inconsistent  with  the  testamentary  disposition.  At  the 
common  law  and  under  early  English  statutes  the  devise  of  such 
land  only  passed  under  the  will  as  the  testator  owned  at  the  time 
of  making  it,^  and  continued  to  own  until  his  death ;  if,  therefore, 
a  testator  aliened  the  devised  land,  although  he  subsequently 
acquired  a  new  freehold  interest  therein,  yet  the  devise  was  void.^ 
In  equity  a  valid  agreement  or  covenant  to  convey  operates  as  a 
revocation  of  a  former  devise  of  the  same  estate,  as  effectually  as 
an  executed  conveyance  at  law.^ 

But  the  law  has  been  changed,  in  this  respect,  both  in  England 
and  in  nearly  all  of  the  American  States.  The  English  Statute 
o.  .  .  of  Wills  ^  provides  that  no  conveyance  of  real  estate 

Statutory  pro-  ^  •' 

visions: Will  made  after  the  execution  of  a  will,  or  other  act  in  re- 
operates  upon  ,■  £ 
ail  property  in    latiou  to  such  estate,  shall  prevent  the  operation  oi 

Unirof'testa-  the  will  upou  such  portion  of  the  estate  as  the  testa- 
tor's death.  ^^^.  ^^^  Y^^^Q  power  to  dispose  of  at  his  death,*^  and 
provisions  to  the  same  effect,  or  validating  the  devise  of  lands 
acquired  after  the  will  was  made,  are  contained  in  the  statutes  of 
most  States,  which  will  be  enumerated  in  connection  with  the 
subject  of  construing  wills.'' 

The  conveyance  of  real  estate  after  a  devise  thereof  operates, 

1  Wms.  on  Ex.  [187],  quoting  Swin-  ^  Real   estate    acquired    by   the    tes- 

burne,  pt.  7,  §  15,  pi.  2 :  "All  these  things  tator  after  making  his  will  goes  to  the 

concurring,  viz.,  the   long  time,  the  in-  heir.  Coulson  v.  Holmes,  5  Sawy.  279, 

crease  of  the  testator's  wealth,  and  the  281  ;    Jackson   v.   Potter,  9   Johns.  312, 

prejudice   of   such  as  are   to  have   the  314. 

administration    of   the   testator's   goods,  ^  \  jarm.   on   Wills,  *147.     See  post, 

the    testament   is   not   presumed    to  be  §  419,  on  the  change  produced  by  stat- 

revoked.     And   albeit   the  testament  be  utes  in  this  respect. 
made  in  time  of  sickness,  and  peril  of  *  Although  the  estate  reverts  by  the 

death,  when  the  testator  does  not  hope  same  instrument:    Walton  v.  Walton,  7 

for  life,  and   afterward  the  testator  re-  Johns.  Ch.   258,  268,  citing  English  au- 

cover  health,  yet   is  not  the  testament  thorities. 
revoked  by  such  recovery  :  or  albeit  the  ^  1  Vict,  c  26,  §  23 

testator  make  his   testament  by  reason  ^  1  Redf  on  Wills,  333,  pi.  2. 

of   some   great  journey,   yet  it    is   not  ^  Post,  §  419, 

revoked  by  the  return  of  the  testator." 


§  53       INCONSISTENT  DlSrOSITlON  OF  TESTAMENTARY  GIFT.     103 

both  at  common  law  and  under  the  statutes,  as  a  revocation  of 
the   devise    to  the   extent   of    the   estate   conveyed.^  Purchase 
Where  tlie  estate  devised  is  contracted   to  be  con-  devisedlui"'^ 
veycd,  and  the  purchase  money  remains  unpaid,  either  tertato"r'to  be 
wholly  or  in  part,  it  i^oes  to  the  personal  representa-  ^oid  goes  to 

.  '■  '■  personal  repre- 

tive,  and  not  to  the  devisee,  because  under  the  doctrine  sentative. 
of  equitable  conversion  the   purchaser  is  regarded  as  a  trustee 
of  the  purchase  money  for  the  vendor.^     In  this  latter  respect, 
however,  provision  is  made  in  many  of  the  American  States  that 
the  purchase  money  shall  0:0  to  the  devisee ;  thus,  by  ,,  , 

1  <•       »  1  9*1  A         \  Unless  other- 

the  statutes  of  Alabama,*^  Arkansas,*  California,'^  wise  provided 
Indiana,^  Kansas,"  Missouri,^  Nevada,^  New  York,^*^  " 
Ohio,^^  and  Oregon,^^  [^  [^  enacted  substantially  that  a  contract  or 
bond  for  the  conveyance  of  real  estate  previously  devised  shall 
not  be  deemed  a  revocation  of  the  devise,  unless  such  intention 
shall  clearly  appear,  but  such  property  shall  pass  to  the  devisee 
subject  to  the  right  of  the  purchaser  to  enforce  specific  perform- 
ance of  the  contract  of  sale  to  the  same  extent  as  it  would  be 
subject  to  as  against  the  heirs ;  and  all  purchase  money  unpaid  at 


1  Webster  v.  Webster,  105  Mass.  538, 
542 ;  Hawes  v.  Humplirey,  9  Pick.  350, 
361  (citing  Toller,  19;  Clarke  r.  Berkeley, 
2  Vern.  720 ;  Coke  v.  Bullock,  Cro.  Jac. 
49;  1  Roll.  Abr.  61G;  Harkness  v.  Bailey, 
Free.  Ch.  514;  Tucker  v.  Thurstan,  17 
Ves.  131)  ;  see  also  Terry  i'.  Edminster, 
reported  in  9  Pick.  355,  note,  citing  Viner, 
Devise,  R.  6 ;  Emery  v.  Union  Society, 
79  Me.  334,  holding  tliat  the  proceeds  of 
the  sale  in  such  case  do  not  go  to  the 
devisee  of  the  land  conveyed,  but  to  the 
residuum,  p.  342 ;  Cozzens  i\  Jamison, 
12  Mo.  App.  452,  457.  But  the  sworn 
statement  of  the  person  claiming  to  be 
the  grantee  in  such  conveyance,  unsup- 
ported by  other  evidence,  is  not  sufficient 
to  deprive  the  devisee  of  his  interest,  if 
the  deed  is  lost  and  has  never  been  re- 
corded :  Napton  v.  Leaton,  71  Mo.  358, 
364.  The  conveyance  by  the  testator  of 
land  devised  in  a  will  also  bequeathing 
personalty  does  not  affect  the  legacy  : 
Warren  v.  Ta3'lor,  56  Iowa,  182 ;  nor 
does  the  conveyance  of  a  part  of  the 
land  devised  affect  the  validity  of  the 
devise    of    the    remainder  .     Swails    v. 


Swails,  98  Ind.  511,  513;  Hoitt  v.  Hoitt, 
63  N.  H.  475,  497.  "A  specific  devise 
of  real  estate  can  only  be  revoked  by 
the  destruction  of  the  will  or  the  execu- 
tion of  another,  or  by  alienation  of  the 
estate  during  the  testator's  life":  Burn- 
ham  V.  Comfort,  108  N.  Y.  535. 

'^  Farrar  v.  Winterton,  5  Beav.  1,  8 ; 
Moor  V.  Raisbeck,  12  Sim.  123,  138; 
Gale  V.  Gale,  21  Beav.  349,  353;  1  Redf. 
on  Wills,  *335,  pi.  7 ;  Donohoo  v.  Lea,  1 
Swan,  119,  121. 

3  Code,  1886,  §  1958.  It  is  held,  under 
this  statute,  that  not  only  the  unpaid 
purchase  money,  but  also  the  right  to 
vacate  a  deed  obtained  by  fraud,  passes 
to  the  devisee  :  Powell  v.  Powell,  30  Ala. 
697,  704. 

<  Dig.  1884,  §  6497. 

5  Civ.  Code,  §  1301. 

6  Rev.  St.  1881,  §  2563. 

^  Comp.  L.  1885,  §  6599  et  seq. 

8  Rev.  St.  1879,  §'.3966. 

9  Comp.  L.  1873,  §  823. 

1"  3  Banks  &  Bro.,  p.  2286,  §  45. 
"  Rev.  St.  1880,  §  5954. 
1-  Code,  1887,  §  3073. 


104  OF   THE    REVOCATION    OF    WILLS.  §  54 

the  time  of  the  testator's  death  goes  to  the  devisee,  and  may  be 
recovered  by  him  from  the  executor  if  paid  to  him. 

A  similar  provision  exists  in  many  States  touching  charges  or 
incumbrances  by  the  testator  upon  devised  real  estate,  which  are 
declared  not  to  constitute  revocations  of  the  devise,  unless  it  ap- 
pear from  the  will  or  the  instrument  creating  the  charge  to  be  so 
intended  ;  ^  but  the  consideration  of  this  subject,  as  well  as  that  of 
the  ademption  of  legacies  in  the  testator's  lifetime,  will  be  more 
appropriately  taken  up  in  connection  with  the  effect  of  legacies 
and  marshalling  of  assets.^ 

Where  property  is  held  by  a  trustee,  with  power  in  the  cestui 
Will  of  a  cestui  5'Me  trust  to  bequeath  the  same  by  will,  the  bequest  of 
r"vokeTby°act  ^^^^^  property  is  not  revoked  by  the  investment  of 
of  the  trustee.  ^\^q  game  in  real  estate,  subsequent  to  the  date  of  the 
will,  although  the  testatrix  and  her  legatee,  who  is  also  her  hus- 
band, occupy  the  same  until  she  dies. 

§  54.  Revocation  by  Marriage.  — At  common  law,  the  marriage 
of  a  feme  sole  works  the  revocation  of  any  will  previously  made 
,,    .       -      by  her,  although  she  survive  her  husband,^  and  al- 

Marriage  of  a        •'  '  *=>  ' 

feme  sole  testa-  thougli  the  liusbaud,  at  the  time   of   her  marriage, 

trix  revokes  i         i  i  ^c  i  -n  ^i 

her  will  at        agreed  that  the  marriage  should  not  anect  the  will.* 
The  rule  does  not  necessarily  apply  to  a  will  made  by 
a  feme  sole,  and  operating  as  an  appointment  under  a  power  to 
declare  uses.^ 

As  early  as  1682  the  rule  of  the  civil  law,'^  that  where  a  man 
made  his  will,  and  afterward  married  and    had  issue,  and  died 

1  The  property  in  such  cases  passes  dies  before  his  wife  without  having  ex- 
to  the  devisee  subject  to  tlie  incura-  ercised  liis  marital  riglits  respecting  the 
brance:  so  provided  in  Alabama,  Arkan-  property  disposed  of  by  the  will,  its  va- 
sas,  California,  Indiana,  Kansas,  Missouri,  hdity  is  thereby  restored:  Morton  v. 
Nevada,  New  York,  Ohio,  and  Oregon.  Onion,  45  Vt.  145,  152.     And  so  where 

2  Post,  §  450.  See  also,  as  to  the  ex-  the  husband  acquires  no  right  over  the 
oneration  of  such  incumbrances,  post,  wife's  property  by  marriage,  the  rule 
§§  494,  497.  ceases  with  its  reason  :  In  re  TuUer,  79 

3  The  reason  of  this  rule  is  said  to  III.  99,  101 ;  Fellows  v.  Allen,  60  N.  H. 
rest  on  the  disability  created  by  the  gov-  4o9,  442 ;  Webb  v.  Jones,  36  N.  J.  Eq. 
erture  to  dispose  of  the  property  devised  163  ;  Noyes  v.  Southworth,  55  Mich.  173. 
or  bequeathed,  whereby  the  ambulatory  *  Carey's  Estate,  49  Vt.  236,  244. 
quality  of  the  will  — one  of  its  essen-  5  IJarm.  *122  ;  1  Wms.  [192] ;  1  Redf. 
tial  features  —  is  destroyed  :  Hodsden  v.  on  Wills,  294  e^  se^. 

Lloyd,  2  Bro.  Ch.  R.  534,  544 ;  Morey  v.  ^  1   Redf.  on  Wills,  294,  citing  Just. 

Sohier,  63  N.  H.  507,  510 ;  it  would  fol-     Inst.  lib.  2,  cap.  13,  §  5. 
low  from  this  view,  that,  if  the  husband 


§  54  REVOCATION   BY   MARRIAGE.  105 

without  cxi)rcssly  revoking  his  will,  leaving  issue  and  jiarria^e  and 
wife  uni)rovided  for,  this  should  be  considered  as  an  birth  of  issue 

I  '  1   •  I        revokes  will 

implied  revocation  of  his  will,  was  introduced  into  the  of  testator  at 
courts  of  England,!  and  subsequently  adopted  in  the 
common  law  courts.^  Marriage  alone  of  a  testator,  apart  from 
the  existence  of  issue  subsequent  to  the  making  of  the  will,  was 
not  considered  as  having  the  effect  of  revoking  it.^  The  rule  in- 
cludes not  only  testators  unmarried  at  the  time  of  making  the 
will  ;  it  also  applies  to  the  case  of  one  whose  wife  subsequently 
dies,  but  who  marries  again,  and  has  issue  of  his  subsequent  mar- 
riage.^ But  it  has  been  held  that  the  birth  of  a  child  alone  does 
not  revoke  a  will  made  after  marriage,  since  a  married  man  must 
be  supposed  to  contcmi)latc  such  event;  and  that  the  circum- 
stance that  the  testator  left  his  wife  enceinte  without  knowing  it, 
did  not  impart  to  the  posthumous  birth  any  revoking  effect.^  But 
the  birth  of  issue,  without  subsequent  marriage,  in  conjunction 
with  other  alterations  in  the  testator's  circumstances,  has  been 
held  sufficient  to  establish  an  implied  revocation  of  the  will.^ 

It  was  the  source  of  considerable  dissension  between  the  ecclesi- 
astical and  common  law  courts,  whether  the  presumption  of  revo- 
cation rested  upon  the  implied  intention  of  the  testator  to  meet 
the  duties  devolving  on  him  from  the  new  state  of  circumstances, 
or  upon  a  rule  of  law  tacitly  annexed  to  the  execution  of  the  will, 
resulting  in  a  revocation  upon  marriage  and  birth  of  issue  inde- 
pendently of  his  intention.  The  latter  view  was  announced  in 
the  case  of  Marston  v.  Roe,"  by  all  the  judges  of  England  (except 
Lord  Penman,  who  was  absent),  and  Williams  says  that  there 
seems  to  be  no  doubt  that  the  principle  of  this  case  would  in 

1  Overbury  v.  Overbury,  2  Sliow.  242.  law  bad  made  for  the  wife  a  provision 

2  1  Wms.  [192]  ;  1  Jarm.  *123  ;  1  independently  of  the  act  of  tlie  husband, 
Redf.  on  Wills,  293,  pi  2  ;  Wilcox  r.  by  means  of  dower  " :  1  Jarm.  *123. 
Rootes,  1  Wash.  (Va.)  140;  Brush  r.  Wil-  •*  1  Redf.  on  Wills,  293,  pi.  2,  citing 
kins,  4  Johns.  Ch.  50G,  510  ;  Bloomer  v.  Christopher  v.  Ciiristopher,  Dick.  445, 
Bloomer,  2  Bradf.  339,  345.  See  the  case  also  cited  in  4  Burr.  2182;  Baldwin  v. 
of  Johnston  v.  Johnston,  1  Phillim.  447,  Sprigiis,  (55  Md.  373,  379. 

468,  in  which  Sir  John   Nicholl  reviews  ^  i  Jarm.  *122,  citing  Doe  v.  Barford, 

the  origin  of  the  rule,  and  the  history  of  4   M.    &   Sel.    10.     But   the   rule   of  the 

its  adoption  in  England,  reaching  the  con-  civil  law   was  that  the  birth  of  a  child, 

elusion  that  subsequent  marriage  is  not  not  foreseen  by  the  testator,  operated  as 

an  essential  ingredient  in  the  circumstan-  a    revocation   of    the   entire   testament : 

ces   raising  the  presumption  of   revoca-  Bloomer  v.  Bloomer,  2  Bradf.  339,  344. 

tion.     And   it  seems  that  such  was  the  ^  Delafield  v.  Parish,  1  Redf.  1,  106; 

civil  law  :  supra,  p.  104,  note  7.  Sherry  v.  Lozier,  1  Bradf  437,  453.     . 

3  "  On  the  ground,  probably,  that  the  "^  8  Ad.  &  El.  14,  54. 


106  OF   THE   REVOCATION   OF    WILLS.  §  54 

future  be  applied  for  the  decision  of  cases  of  this  description  in 
the  ecclesiastical  as  well  as  the  temporal  courts.^  The  impor- 
tance of  the  distinction  arises  out  of  the  consequence  that  in  the 
former  case  evidence  was  admissible  in  support  of  the  will  to 
rebut  the  presumed  intention,^  while  in  the  latter  it  was  finally 
settled  that  no  evidence  of  the  testator's  intention  that  his  will 
should  not  be  revoked  was  admissible  to  rebut  the  presumption  of 
the  law.^ 

Marriage  and  the  birth  of  issue  do  not  at  common  law  produce 
revocation  of  a  will,  if  provision  be  made  for  the  wife  and  chil- 

^  ,  .  dren  by  the  will  itself,  or,  it  is  conceived,  by  settle- 
But  marriage  •'  ^      '       '  _  . 

and  issue  pro-  mcut  cxccutcd  previously  to  the  will.  But  it  follows 
tion  if  child  be  from  the  doctriuc  that  revocation  is  presumed  by  the 
piovi  e  or.  j^^  from  marriage  and  the  birth  of  issue,  that  a  pro- 
vision for  wife  and  children  under  a  settlement  executed  after  the 
will  cannot  prevent  revocation,  as  it  might  have  done  if  the  ques- 
tion had  been  one  merely  of  intention.^  Nor  is  provision  for 
the  wife  alone  sufficient,  though  made  before  the  will ;  nor,  per- 
haps, a  provision  for  children  alone,  though  made  before  the  will ; 
it  seems  that  the  exception  is  confined  to  a  case  where  both  wife 
and  children  are  provided  for.^ 

Several  dicta  ^  intimate  the  opinion  that  revocation  does  not 
take  place  where  the  will  disposes  of  less  than  the  whole  estate ; 
but  it  has  never  been  so  decided,  and,  considering  that  the  inquiry 
is  not  what  the  testator  intended,  but  whether  the  wife  and  chil- 
dren be  in  fact  provided  for,  it  seems  that  revocation  would  in  all 
cases  follow  where  there  is  no  actual  provision,  although  there 
might  be  an  intended  or  professed  one.'' 

1  Wms.  Ex.  [195],  citing  Israeli  v.  2  Hagg.  Eccl.  561,  564;  Ex  parte  Ilches- 
Rodon,  2  Moore  P.  C.  51,  63,  64  ;  Walker     ter,  7  Ves.  848,  365. 

V.  Walker,  2  Curt.  854 ;  Matson  v.  Ma-  ^  x  Jarm.  *124,  citing  Marston  v.  Fox, 

grath,  1  Robert  680.  supra,   and  Kenebel  v.  Scrafton,  2  East, 

2  Brush  V.  W^ilkins,  4  Johns.  Ch.  506,     530,  541. 

510,  reviewing  the  English  authorities;  ^  By  Lord  Mansfield  in  Brady  i'.  Cubit, 

Yerby  v.  Yerby,  3  Call,  3.34,  338  et  seq. ;  1   Doug.  31,   39;   Lord  EUenborough,   in 

Havens   v.    Van   Den   Burgh,   1    Denio,  Kenebel  v.  Scrafton,  2  East,   541 ;    and 

27,  32.  Tindal,  C.  J.,  in  Marston  v.  Roe,  8  Ad. 

3  Marston  v.  Roe,  8  Ad.  &  El.  mfra;  &  El.  57. 

Sherry    v.   Lozier,    1    Bradf.    437,  453  ;  "^  1  Jarm.  *125.     So  property  acquired 

Baldwin  v.  Spriggs,  65  Md.  373;  Nutt  v.  after  the  execution  of  the  will,  and  which 

Norton,  142  Mass.  242,  245.  is  unaffected  thereby,  is  not  a  provision 

*  1  Jarm.  *r24,  citing  Israelii-.  Rodon,  for  the  afterborn  children,  so  as  to  pre- 

2   Moo.  P.  C.  51,  as  overruling    Talbot  vent  revocation:  Baldwin  v.  Spriggs,  65 

V.  Talbot,  1  Hagg.  705 ;  Johnson  v.  Wells,  Md.  373. 


§  55  REVOCATION    BY   MARRIAGE.  107 

A  will  once  revoked  by  marriage  and  the  ])irth  of  issue  is  not 
revived  by  the  death  of  the  child  or  children  in  the  lifetime  of 
the  testator.^ 

§  55.  Revocation  by  Marriage  and  Birth  of  Issue  under  English 
and  American  Statutes. — The  question  of  implied  revocation  by  a 
change  in  the  condition  or  circumstances  of  the  testa- 

~  _  Uimer  the 

tor  is  now  determined   by  statute,  both  in  England  En^'iisii  stat- 

„      ,  ,  .  r>.      .  mi        -n       T   1     lite  of  Wills. 

and  in  most  of  the  American  States,  ihe  Lnghsh 
statute  of  1837  provides,  in  this  respect,  "  that  every  will  made 
by  a  man  or  woman  shall  be  revoked  by  his  or  her  marriage," 
except  a  will  made  in  exercise  of  a  power  of  appointment.  (§  18.) 
And  "  that  no  will  shall  be  revoked  by  any  presumption  of  an 
intention  on  the  ground  of  an  alteration  in  circumstances."  (§  19.) 
And  "  no  will  or  codicil,  or  any  part  thereof,  shall  be  revoked 
otherwise  than  as  aforesaid"  (by  marriage),  "or  by  another  will 
or  codicil  executed  in  manner  hereinbefore  required,  or  by  some 
writing  declaring  an  intention  to  revoke  the  same,  and  executed 
in  the  manner  in  which  a  will  is  hereinbefore  required  to  be 
executed,  or  by  the  burning,  tearing,  or  otherwise  destroying  the 
same  by  the  testator,  or  by  some  person  in  his  presence  and  by 
his  direction,  with  the  intention  to  revoke  the  same."     (§  20.) 

The  American  statutes  vary  greatly  on  this  point.  In  Conneeti- 
cut,2  Georgia,^  Illinois,'*  Kentucky ,5  North  Carolina,'^  Rhode  Island," 

1  1  Jarm.  *126,  relying  on  Helyar  v.  tator  disposing  of  the  whole  of  his  estate 

Helyar,  cited  in  1  Pliillim.  413;  Sullivan  without  making  provision  in  contempla- 

V.  Sullivan,  cited  in  1  Pliillim.  343  ;  Emer-  tion  of   the   relations   arising   out   of  it, 

eon  V.  Boville,  cited  in  1  Phillim.  324.  because  under  the  law  of  Illinois  husband 

■^  Since  1885,  the  act  not  being  retro-  and  wife  inherited   from   each   other  in 

spective  :  Goodsell's  Appeal,  55  Conn.  171.  default  of  children  :  American  Board  v. 

3  Code,  1882,  §  2477.     The    language  Nelson,   72    III.    564,   affirming    Tyler  v. 
is  :  "  In  all  cases  tiie  marriage  of  a  testa-  Tyler,  19  III.  151,  and  affirmed  in  Duryea 
tor,  or  the  birth  of  a  child  to  him,  subse-  v.  Duryea,  85  111.  41,  50.     Since  the  act  of 
quent  to  the  making  of  a  will,  in  which  1872,  marriage,  whether  of  a  man  or  wo- 
no  provision  is  made  in  contemplation  of  man,  operates  per  se  as  a  revocation  of 
such  an  event,  shall   be  a  revocation  of  a  prior  will :  McAnnulty  v.  McAnnulty, 
the  will."     This  is  held  to  mean  that  the  120  111.  26. 
provision  is  made  by  the  will;    the  pro-  °  Gen.  St.  1887,  ch.  113,  §  9. 
vision  for  the  wife  or  child  otherwise  than  ^  Code,  1883,  §  2177. 
by  the  will  lias  nothing  to  do   with  the  ■   Pub.  St.  1882,  p.  471,  §  6.     Tlie  Ian- 
question  :   Deupree   v.   Deupree,   45  Ga.  guagc  of  the  statute  is  :  "  No  devise  .  .  . 
414,  439.  shall  be  revocable  otherwise  than  by  a 

*  St.  &  Curt.  St.  1885,  p.  883,  par.  10.  marriage  of  the  testator  subsequent  to  the 

In  this  State  it  had  been  lield,  before  the  date  thereof,  or,"  etc.     This  is  held  to 

enactment  of  this  statute,  that  marriage  mean,  that  the  acts  and  instruments  speci- 

alone  revoked  the  previous  will  of  a  tes-  fied  shall  be  competent  to  revoke  a  will, 


108  OF   THE    REVOCATION   OF    WILLS.  §  55 

Under  Amcri-  Virginia,^  and  West  Virginia,2  the  marriage  of  a 
can  statutes.  TcanTi  ov  womaii  is  declared  to  revoke  a  previous 
will  made  by  him  or  her;  in  Alabama,^  Arkansas,*  California,^ 
Indiana,'^  Missouri,'''  Nevada,^  New  York,^  Oregon,^*^  and  Pennsyl- 
vania,^^  tlie  marriage  of  a  feme  sole  is  declared  to  revoke  her 
previous  will;  the  statute  in  California  and  Pennsylvania  also  pro- 
viding that  the  death  of  the  husband  before  that  of  the  testatrix 
shall  not  have  the  effect  to  revive  her  will.  In  Ohio,^^  on  the  con- 
trary, the  statute  provides  that  the  marriage  of  a  testatrix  shall 
not  revoke  her  will  previously  made ;  and  in  New  Jersey  and 
Michigan  it  is  so  held,  on  the  ground  of  the  removal  of  the  disa- 
bilities of  married  women.^^  In  Nevada^*  the  marriage  of  a  man 
revokes  a  will  previously  made,  if  the  wife  survives  him  and  no 
provision  has  been  made  for  her ;  and  in  Georgia  ^^  and  South 
Carolina,^^  if  the  will  contains  no  provision  for  the  future  wife  and 
childi'cn,  if  any. 

In  quite  a  number  of  States,  in  which  the  statute  prescribes 
the  manner  in  which  a  will  may  be  revoked,  a  saving  clause  is 
introduced,  declaring  that  the  statute  shall  not  be  understood  as 
controlling  or  negativing  a  revocation,  implied  or  presumed,  upon 
the  ground  of  a  change  in  the  testator's  circumstances ;  for 
instance,  in  Kansas,^'  Maine,^^  Massachusetts,!^  Michigan,^^  Minne- 
sota,2iNebraska,22New  Hampshire,^^  Ohio,-*  Vermont,^^  and  Wiscon- 
sin.26     The  statute  of  North  Carolina,  on  the  contrary,  provides 

not  that  they  shall  absolutely  have  that  "  Bright.  Purd.  Dig.  1883,  p.  1712,  §  19. 

effect :   Wheeler  v.  Wheeler,  I  R.  I.  364,  i'^  Rev.  St.  1880,  §  5958. 

373.     Hence  marriage  constitutes  a  pre-  ^^  Webb  v.  Jones,  36  N.  J.  Eq.  168 ; 

sumptive  revocation  only,  which  may  be  Noyes  v.  Southworth,  55  Mich.  173. 

rebutted  by  extrinsic  evidence  :  Miller  v.  "  Comp.  L.  1873,  §  821. 

Phillips,  9  R  I.  141,  144.  15  Code,  1882,  §  2477. 

1  Code,  1887,  §  2517.  is  Gen.  St.  1882,  §  1860. 

2  Kelly's  Rev.  St.  1879,  p.  1169,  §  6.  i'  Dass.  St.  1885,  ch.  117,  §  37. 

3  Code,  1886,  §  1954.  is  Rev.  St.  1883,  p.  608,  §  3. 

4  Dig.  1884,  §  6496.  i^  Pub.   St.  1882,  p.   748,  §  8;   under 

5  Civ.  Code,  §  1300.  this  statute,  it  is  held  that  the  will  of  a 
s  Rev.  St.  1881,  §  2562.  feme  sole  is  revoked  by  her  subsequent 
"i  Rev.  St.  1879,  §  3965.  marriage  :  Swan  v.  Hammond,  138  Mass. 

8  Comp.  L.  1873,  §  822,  45. 

9  3  Banks  &  Bro.,  7th  ed.,  p.  2286,  §  44.        20  How.  St.  1882,  §  5793. 
The  subsequent  statute  authorizing  mar-        21  Qpn.  St.  1878,  p.  568,  §  9. 
ried  women  to  make  wills  does  not  change         22  Comp.  St.  1887,  ch.  23,  §  132. 
the  rule  that  the  will  of  a  feme  sole  is  re-         23  Gen.  L.  1878,  p.  456,  §  15. 
voked  by  her  marriage  :  Brown  v.  Clark,         24  Rgy.  St.  1880,  §  5953. 

77  N.  Y.  369,  372.  25  Rgy.  L.  1880,  §  2047. 

10  Code,  1887,  §  3072.  26  Rev.  St.  1878,  §  2290.  In  this  State 


§  55 


REVOCATION   BY  MARRIAGE. 


109 


that  no  will  shall  he  revoked  by  any  presumption  of  an  intention 
on  the  j^round  oi'  an  alteration  in  circumstances.^ 

The  natural  effect  of  these  saving  clauses  seems  to  be,  that  in 
the  States  whose  statutes  so  provide  the  doctrine  of  the  common 
law  on  this  subject'-^  is  affirmatively  recog-nized,  and  its  rules  must 
determine  the  circumstances  under  which  a  revocation  is  to  be 
presumed.^ 

The  will  of  a  testator  disposing  of  the  whole  of  his  estate,  who 
marries  after  making  it,  and  dies  leaving  issue  of  such  marriage 
unprovided  for  in  the  will,  and  not  mentioned  therein  in  such 
way  as  to  show  his  intention  not  to  make  such  provision,  is 
declared  to  be  revoked  by  the  statutes  of  Alabama,*  Arkansas,^ 
California,*^  Missouri,'  New  York,^  Oregon.^  The  birth  of  legiti- 
mate issue  after  making  a  will,  for  whom  no  provision  is  made, 
revokes  the  will  without  reference  to  the  question  of  marriage 
under  the  statutes  of  Connecticut,^*^  Delaware,^^  Georgia,i-  Indi- 
ana,^3  Kansas/"*  New  Jersey ,^°  and  Ohio.^^ 

the  will  of  a  married  woman  in  favor  of 
her  children  by  a  former  husband  is  not 
revoked  by  her  marriage  with  a  third 
after  the  death  of  the  second  husband, 
liaving  no  children  by  her  last  marriage  : 
Will  of  Ward,  35  N.  W.  R.  731. 

1  Code,  1883,  §2178. 

2  Ante,  §  54. 
8  Warner  v.  Beach,  4  Gray,  162,  163  ; 

Nutt  V.  Norton,  142  :\Iass.  242,  245;  Swan 
V.  Hammond,  138  Mass.  45.  In  New 
Hampshire  it  is  held  that  this  clause 
"  is  to  be  taken  not  as  a  recognition  and 
adojjtion  of  the  common  law  doctrine,  but 
of  the  English  decisions  under  §§  5,  0, 
and  22  of  tlie  Statute  of  Frauds,  passed  in 
1676  "  :  floitt  i'.  Hoitt,  63  N.  H.  475,  495  ; 
Moray  v.  Soliier,  63  N.  H   507,  510. 

4  Code,  1886,  §  1953.     See  Gay  v.  Gay, 

4  Southern  R.  42,  as  to  what  constitutes 
sufficient  provision. 

5  Dig.  1884,  §  649-5. 
G  Civ.  Code,  §  1299 ;    Sanders  v.  Sim- 

cich,  65  Cal.  50.  Parol  evidence  is  not 
admissible  to  show  that  a  testator  inten- 
tionally omitted  a  child  ;  the  evidence  of 
intention  must  be  shown  by  t!ie  will  itself : 
Estate  of  Garraud,  35  Cal.  336,  339  et  se(]. 

7  Rev.  St.  1879,  §  3904. 

8  3  Banks  &  Bro.,  p.  2286,  §  43,—  if  the 
wife  survive  the  testator.     See  Gall  in  re, 

5  Dem.  374. 


9  Code,  1887,  §  3071. 
1'  Gen.  St.  1888,  §  542. 

11  Rev.  Code,  1874,  p.  510,  §  11. 

12  Code,  1882,  §  2477. 

13  Rev.  St.  1881,  §  2-560.  But  if  such 
child  dies  without  issue  vviiile  the  mother 
is  living,  the  estate  passes  under  the  will 
except  tlie  wife's  interest  therein  ;  and  in 
case  of  the  death  of  both,  the  child  leaving 
no  issue,  the  whole  estate  passes  under 
the  will,  unless  the  child  leaves  a  wife, 
who  shall  hold  such  estate  to  her  use 
so  long  as  she  remains  unmarried  :  lb. 
§2-561.  Whether  under  this  section  the 
will  is  absolutely  revoked  by  the  birth  of 
the  child,  or  is  held  in  abeyance  until  its 
death  without  issue,  has  not  been  decided  : 
Morse  v.  Morse,  42  Ind.  3,G5,  370.  The 
common  law  rule,  that  marriage  alone 
does  not  revoke  the  previous  will  of  a 
man  is  not  changed  in  this  State  :  Bowers 
v.  Bowers,  53  Ind.  430,  432. 

1^  Dass.  Comp.  L.  1885,  ch  117,  §  36. 

15  Coudert  v.  Coudert,  43  N.  J.  Eq. 
407. 

IS  Rev.  St.  1880,  §  5959.  The  statute 
"  when  the  testator  had  no  child  at  the 
time  of  executing  such  will,  and  shall 
afterward  have  a  child,"  construed  to  in- 
clude a  posthumous  child :  Evans  v. 
Anderson,  15  Oli.  St.  324,  326;  and  the 
will  is  not  revived  by  the  death  of  the 


110 


OF   THE   REVOCATION    OF    WILLS. 


55 


In  Colorado^  and  Illinois ^  the  statute  declares  that  if,  after 
making  a  will,  a  child  or  children  be  born  to  any  testator  for 
whom  no  provision  is  made  tlierein,  the  will  shall  not,  on  that 
account,  be  revoked  ;  but  unless  it  shall  appear  from  the  will 
that  such  issue  was  intentionally  disinherited,  the  devises  and 
legacies  by  such  will  given  shall  be  abated  in  equal  proportions 
to  raise  a  portion  for  such  child  or  children  equal  to  that  which 
such  child  or  children  would  have  been  entitled  to  if  no  will 
had  been  made. 

Similar  provisions,  in  effect  declaring  a  revocation  j^ro  tanto 
upon  the  birth  of  issue  after  the  making  of  a  will  containing  no 
provision  for  such  event,  giving  such  after-born  children  an  inter- 
est in  the  estate  equal  to  what  would  have  descended  to  them  in 
case  of  intestacy,  are  contained  in  the  statutes  of  Alabama,^  Ar- 
kansas,^ California,^   Delaware,^   Iowa,'''  Maine,^   Massachusetts,^ 


child  before  that  of  the  testator :  Ash  v. 
Ash,  9  Oh.  St.  383,  387. 

1  Gen.  L.  Col.  1883,  §  3488. 

2  St.  &  Curt.  St.  1885,  p.  883,  par.  10 ; 
Ward  I'.  Ward,  120  111.  111.  The  pro- 
vision required  by  the  statute  need  not 
he  definite  or  certain ;  as  the  testator 
may  totally  disinherit  such  after-born 
child,  anij  provision,  no  matter  how  re- 
motely contingent,  or  insignificant,  will 
prevent  the  application  of  the  statute  : 
Osborn  v.  Jeflferson  Bank,  116  III.  130. 

3  Code,  1886,  §  1955. 

*  Dig.  1884,  §  6499.  Whether  the 
omission  of  the  child  is  accidental  or 
intentional :  Branton  v.  Branton,  23  Ark. 
569,  572. 

5  Civ.  Code,  §§  1306,  1307.  The  use  of 
the  word  "  children  "  in  the  introductory 
clause  of  a  will  is  not  indicative  of  an 
intention  to  e.xclude  the  children  of  a 
deceased  daughter  not  named  :  Estate  of 
Utz,  43  Cal.  200,  203. 

6  Warren  v.  Morris,  4  Del.  Ch.  289, 
306.  The  testamentary  title  is  not  dis- 
turbed by  this  statute,  but  each  devisee 
and  legatee  is  charged  with  a  propor- 
tional contribution  to  make  up  an  estate 
for  the  post-testamentary  child  equal  to 
what  it  would  have  received  if  there  had 
been  no  will  :  lb.,  p.  307. 

T  Miller's  Rev.  1886,  §  2334.  This 
statute  mentions  posthumous  children 
only.     It  is  held,  however,  as  a  principle 


of  law,  that  the  birth  of  a  child  to  the 
testator  after  making  his  will  and  before 
his  death  operates  as  an  implied  revoca- 
tion :  McCullum  v.  McKenzie,  26  Iowa, 
510  ;  Negus  v.  Negus,  40  Iowa,  487  : 
Alden  v.  Johnson,  63  Iowa,  124.  But 
tl'.e  omission  may  be  shown  to  be  in- 
tentional by  parol  testimony  :  Lorieux  v. 
Keller,  5  Iowa,  196,  203.  It  is  also  held 
in  this  State  that  the  birth  of  an  ille- 
gitimate child  recognized  bj^  the  father 
has  the  same  effect  upon  the  father's 
previous  will  •  Milburn  v.  Milburn,  60 
Iowa,  411. 

8  Rev.  St.  188-3,  p.  608,  §  9.  A  devise 
to  the  widow  during  her  life  and  widow- 
hood, "  to  revert  to  his  heirs  upon  her 
death  or  marriage,"  is  not  a  provision 
for  a  posthumous  child  under  tliis  stat- 
ute. It  will  take  as  if  the  fatlier  had 
died  intestate :  Waterman  v.  Hawkins, 
63  Me.  156,  160. 

9  Pub.  St.  1882,  p.  750,  §  22.  If  it  is 
evident  from  the  will  that  the  child  was 
in  the  contemplation  of  the  testator,  it 
does  not  take  imder  this  statute  :  Prentiss 
V.  Prentiss,  11  Allen,  47,  49,  approving 
Wild  V.  Brewer,  2  Mass.  570;  and  the 
omission  may  be  shown  to  be  intentional 
by  parol  testimony  :  Buckley  *•  Gerard, 
123  Mass  8,  11  ;  Lorings  v.  Marsh,  6 
Wall.  337.  347  See  Hurly  v.  O'Sulhvan 
137  Mass  86. 


§55 


REVOCATION   BY   MARRIAGE. 


Ill 


Michigan,^  Minnesota,^  Missouri,'^  Nebraska,''  Nevada,^  New 
IIampshii-e,6  Xcw  Jersey,'  New  York,^  Rhode  Island,^  South 
Carolina,io  Tennessee,ii  Texas,i2  Virginia,!^  Wcst  Virginia,!*  and 
Wisconsin.!^  In  many  of  these  States  no  distinction  is  drawn  as 
between  children  born  after  the  making  of  the  will,  and  such  as 
have  been  pretermitted,  though  in  existence  when  the  will  was 
made  ;  nor  between  children  and  the  issue  of  deceased  children. 
Nor  is  any  distinction  recognized,  generally,  between  children 
born  during  the  lifetime  of  the  testator  and  posthumous  children ; 
the  latter  are  entitled  to  the  same  rights  and  remedies  as  the 
forme r.i*^  13ut  in  Kentucky  the  birth  of  a  pretermitted  child  after 
the  making  of  the  will  operates  to  make  the  devises  and  bequests 
of  the  will  contingent  upon  the  death  of  such  child,  unmarried 
and  without  issue,  before  it  reaches  the  age  of  twenty-one  years.^' 
A  similar  provision  exists  in  Mississippi,!^  Texas,!^  Yirginia,20 
and  West  Virginia.^i     In  Pennsylvania,  marriage  or  birth  of  issue 


1  How.  St.  1882,  §  5809. 

2  Gary's  Pr.  L.  §  165.  This  author  inti- 
mates tiiat  the  common  law  presumption 
of  an  entire  revocation  by  subsequent 
marriage  and  birtli  of  issue  remains  in 
force  in  Minnesota  and  Wisconsin. 

8  Rev.  St.  1879,  §  3969.  The  statute 
of  Missouri  requires  tlie  cliild  to  be 
"named"  in  the  will;  hence  the  decla- 
ration that  one  of  his  children  shall  take 
no  part  of  his  estate  is  sufficient  to  pre- 
vent revocation  as  to  such  child  :  Block 
V.  Block,  3  Mo.  594  ;  the  mention  of  a 
deceased  child  is  sufficient  as  to  the  de- 
scendants of  such  child  without  naming 
them  :  Guitar  i'.  Gordon,  17  Mo.  408, 
411  :  so  the  naming  of  a  son-in  law, 
thougli  not  designated  as  such,  is  equiv- 
alent to  the  naming  of  the  daughter  : 
Hockensmith  v.  Slusher,  26  Mo.  237,  239  ; 
tlie  naming  of  children  as  a  class  includes 
all  wiio  answer  tlie  description  at  the 
time  tlie  will  takes  effect :  Allen  v.  Clay- 
brook,  58  Mo.  124,  132.  If  tlie  child  or 
children,  or  their  descendants,  had  an 
equal  proportion  of  the  testator's  estate 
bestowed  upon  them  in  the  testator's  life- 
time, they  take  nothing  by  virtue  of  this 
statute  •  Rev.  St.  §  3970. 

*  Comp.  St.  1887,  ch.  23,  §  149.  The 
intention  to  disinherit  must  appear  on 
the  face  of  the  will :  C.  B.  &  Q.  R.  R.  v. 
Wasserman,  22  Fed.  Rep.  872. 


^  Including  issue  of  a  deceased  child  : 
Comp.  L.  1873,  §  826. 

6  Gen.  L.  1878,  p.  455,  §  10. 

■7  Laws,  1877,  p.  1246,  §  19.  A  provis- 
ion for  "  children  born  and  to  be  born  "  is 
sufficient  to  avoid  the  implied  revocation  : 
Stevens  v.  Shippen,  28  N.  J.  Eq.  487,  535. 

8  3  Ranks  &  Bro.,  p.  2287,  §  49. 

9  Pub.  St.  1882,  p.  472,  §  12,  — whether 
the  pretermission  was  intentional  or  ac- 
cidental. The  provision  must  be  made 
in  the  will,  otherwise  it  cannot  operate 
against  the  child  :  Chace  v.  Chace,  6  R. 
I.  407,  411 ;  Potter  v.  Brown,  11  R.  I.  232. 

1"  Gen.  St.  1882,  §  1740. 

11  Code,  1884,  §  3033. 

12  Rev.  St.  1888,  §  4868,  — if  the  will 
was  made  while  the  testator  had  a  child 
living.  It  is  held  in  this  State  that  mar- 
riage alone  of  a  testator  does  not  revoke 
his  previous  will,  —  birth  of  issue  also 
is  necessary  :  Morgan  v.  Davenport,  60 
Te.x.  230. 

13  Code,  1887,  §  2528. 

»  Kelly's  Rev."  St.  1879,  p.  1172,  §  17. 

15  Rev.  St.  1878,  §§  2286,  2287  ;  Moon 
V.  Evans,  69  Wis.  667. 

16  Hart  V.  Hart,  70  Ga.  764. 

"  Gen.  St.  1887.  ch.  113.  §24. 

18  Rev.  Code,  1880,  §  1263. 

19  Rev.  St.  1888.  art.  4869. 

20  Code,  1887,  §  2527. 

21  Kelly's  Rev.  St.,  p.  1172,  §  16. 


112  OF   THE   REVOCATION   OF   WILLS.  §  56 

after  the  making  of  a  will  in  which  no  provision  is  made  for  the 
children,  revokes  the  will  jjro  tanto,  and  such  widow,  child,  or 
children  (although  horn  after  the  death  of  the  testator)  are  enti- 
tled to  shares  and  dividends  of  the  estate  as  if  there  were  no 
will.i 

The  adoption  of  a  child  under  a  statute  making  such  adopted 
child  an  heir  of  the  party  adopting  does  not,  it  seems,  operate  to 
revoke  a  pre-existing  will.^ 

§  56.   Republication  of  Wills. — A  will  which  has  become  inop- 
erative by  reason  of  revocation,  either  express  or  implied,  may  at 
any  time  be  restored  to  its  original  validity  by  act  of 
o/''revoked°°    the  testator,  if  competent  to  make  a  will ;  because  the 
^'"'  republication  or  revival  of  a  revoked  will  is  precisely 

equivalent  to  the  making  of  a  new  one.^  "  In  short,"  says  Wil- 
liams, "  the  will  so  republished  is  a  new  will."  *  It  follows  from 
Requires  same  this,  that  the  Same  authority  and  competency  are  re- 
competency  in    (^uii-cd,  and  the  same  solemnities  and  formalities  must 

testator  and  i  ' 

same  formaVi-     }^q  observed,  to  make  a  valid  republication,  as  are  neces- 

tiesas  formak-  .m         tt  ^^^      s-  1j- 

inga  new  will,  sai'y  to  make  a  new  will.  Hence  a  will  ot  personalty, 
which  in  the  absence  of  statutory  provisions  to  the  contrary  may 
be  made  by  parol  act,  may  also,  after  being  revoked,  be  revived 
or  republished  by  parol,  or  by  an  imattested  codicil  or  other 
writing ;  ^  and  so  as  to  a  will  of  lands  not  affected  by  the  Statute 
of  Frauds.^     But  where  the  execution  of  a  will  requires  attesta- 

1  Bright.  Piird.  Dig.  1883,  p.  1712,  !*  "  From  the  date  of  the  revocation, 
§  18 ;  and  see  note  h  for  a  collection  of  the  will  revoked  ceases  to  be  a  testamen- 
the  rules  as  to  the  revocation  of  wills,  tary  disposition  of  the  maker's  estate.  .  .  . 
by  marriage  and  the  birth  of  cliildren,  And  if  the  party  who  made  it  desires  to 
tinder  the  statutes  of  Pennsylvania,  with  make  a  testamentary  disposition  of  his 
reference  to  the  adjudications.  The  ap-  estate,  he  must  make  a  new  will,  in  the 
pointment  of  the  wife  as  testamentary  manner  required  by  the  statute.  But  in 
guardian  will  not  be  revoked  by  the  sub-  doing  this,  he  may  use  the  same  form  of 
sequent  birth  of  a  child  :  Hollingsworth's  words,  without  variations  or  with  varia- 
Appeal,  51  Pa.  St.  518,  521.  The  revo-  tions,  and  the  same  written  or  printed 
cation  by  marriage  is  absolute,  whether  document  tliat  was  used  at  first  "■  Bar- 
provision  be  made  for  her  or  not ;  but  as  ker  v.  Bell,  46  Ala.  216,  222. 

to  children,  the  revocation  depends  upon  *  Wms.  [216]. 

the  absence  of  provision  for  them  :  Ed-  6  Wms.  [205],  citing  Wentworth  Ex. 

wards's  Appeal,  47  Pa.  St.  144,  152.    The  ch.  1,  p.  60. 

statute  means  a  physical  birth,  and  not  a  6  Wms.  [206],  citing  Jackson  v.  Ilur- 
legislative  legitimation,  after  making  the  lock,  1  Amb.  487,  494  ;  Beckford  v.  Par- 
will :  McCulloch's  Appeal,  113  Pa.  St.  necott,  Cro.  Eliz.  493  ;  see  also  Havard  r. 
247,  255.  Davis,  2  Binn.  406,  425  ;  Jack  v.  Shoen- 

2  Davis  V.  King,  89  N.  C.  441 ;    King  berger,  22  Pa.  St.  416,  421. 
V.  Davis,  91  N.  C.  142. 


§  56  REPUBLICATION    OF    WILLS.  113 

tion  by  two,  three,  or  more  witnesses,  it  cannot  l)e  rovivod,  after 
revocation,  except  by  re-execution,  or  by  codicil  executed  in  the 
presence  and  under  the  attestation  of  the  same  number  of  wit- 
nesses.^ 

A  codicil  will  amount  to  a  republication  of  the  will  to  whicli  it 
refers,  whether  it  be  attached  thereto  or  not; 2  but  Coriicii 

„    ,,  !•    •!  i       1  1    J  •  amounts  to  re- 

the  mtention  of  the  codicil  must  always  determine,  publication. 
and  if  it  appear  from  the  face  of  the  codicil  that  it  Unless  it  ap- 
was  not  the  intention  of  the  testator  to  republish,  the  waTnottestT- 
ordinary  presumption  derived  from  the  existence  of  ^"'"'^  '"teution. 
the  codicil  will  be  counteracted.^ 

Since,  as   shown  above,  the  republication  of  a  will   is  tanta- 
mount to  the  making  of  that  will  de  novo,  it  brings  down  the  will 
to  the  date  of  its  republishing,  and  makes  it  speak,  as  codicii  brings 
it  were,  from  that  time.*     But  it  should  be  observed  n^Hed't'oUs 
that  a  codicil  republishing  a  former  will,  which  had  0^"  ''^^^^■ 
been  altered  by  one  or  more  previous  codicils,  does  not  set  up  the 
will  against  the  codicil  or  codicils  revoking  it  in  part.^     There  is 
a  difference  in  this  respect  in  the  effect  of  a  codicil  upon  a  will 
in  part  revoked  or  changed  by  an  intervening  codicil  or  codicils, 
and  its  effect  upon  prior  inconsistent  wills  ;  in  the  latter  case,  the 
republication  of  the  first  will  by  date  will  establish  it  as  the  valid 
last  will,  and  cancel  the  intermediate  one  ;  in  the  former  case,  the 
first  will  is  established  as  affected  or  changed  by  the  subsequent 
codicils.^ 

1  Jackson  v.  Potter,  9  Johns.  312,  ?.U ;  his  last  will,  he  ratifies  and  confirms  it 
Love  V.  Jolinston,  12  Ired.  L.  355,  361  ;  with  every  codicil  tliat  lias  been  added 
Witter  V.  Mott,  2  Conn.  67,  69  ;  Musser  to  it  "  :  4  Ves.  610,  616.  But  see  Alsop's 
V.  Curry,  3  Wash.  C.  C.  481.  Appeal,  9  Pa.  St.  374,  381,  where  it  is 

2  Ante,  §  47  ;  Van  Cortlandt  v.  Kip,  1  held  that  although  a  will  and  the  codicils 
Hill,  (N.  Y.)  590,  593,  with  a  collection  form  but  one  testamenf,  and  speak  from 
of  American  authorities,  affirmed  in  Kip  the  date  of  the  last  codicil,  yet  tliey  con- 
V.  Van  Cortland,  7  Hill,  (N.  Y.)  316,  349  stitute  different  instrumfulx,  and  a  bequest 
et  seq.,  reviewing  the  English  authorities,  of  the  residue  by  the  will  "  to  the  leira- 
per  the  Chancellor.  tees  "  will  be  confined   to  such  legatees 

3  Wms.  [213]  ;  Kendall  r.  Kendall,  5  as  are  therein  named,  and  to  such  as  are 
Munf.  272,  275  ;  Wikoff's  Appeal,  15  Pa.  substituted  by  codicil  for  some  of  them  ; 
St.  281,  291.  and  that  legatees  not  named  in  the  will, 

*  Wms.    [216]  ;    jMurray  v.   Oliver,  6  but  in  the  codicils  (except  those  suhsti- 

Ired.  Eq.  55,  56  ;  Miles  v.  Boyden,  3  Pick,  tuted  in  the  codicils  for  others  named  in 

213,216;  fl;?/e,  §  47.  the  will),  are  not  entitled  to  participate 

5  Wms.  [217].    "It  is  perfectly  true,"  in  tlie  distribution  of  the  residue, 
says  Lord   Alvanley,  in   Crosbie  v.  Mc-  ^  Croshie  r.  McDoual.  4  Ves.  610,  616. 

Doual,  "that  if  a  man  ratifies  and  confirms  See  on  this  subject  ch^c,  §  52,  of  the  re- 
VOL.  I.  —  8 


114  OF   THE    REVOCATION   OF   WILLS.  §  £6 

Another  consequence  of  treating  the  republication  as  the  mak- 
ino-  of  a  new  will  is,  that  its  operation  extends  to  matters  which 
have  arisen  between  its  date  and  its  republication. ^  Real  estate 
acquired  after  the  date  of  the  will,  which  under  the  common  law 
rule  cannot  pass  under  such  will,  because  it  can  include  only  such 
as  the  testator  owned  at  the  time  of  making  the  will  and  con- 
tinued to  own  until  his  death ,2  will  pass  to  the  devisee,  if  fairly 
included  by  the  language  of  the  devise,  by  a  republication  of  the 
will  after  the  property  is  acquired.^  So  the  will  of  a  widow  made 
before  or  during  coverture,  which  is  not  revived  by  the  husband's 
death,*  may  be  made  valid  by  republication ;  and  a  will  executed 
under  undue  influence  is  validated  by  a  codicil  republishing  and 
confirming  it  when  the  testator  is  free  from  such  influence.^ 

vival  of  former  by  revocation  of  later         »  Haven  i;.  Foster,  14  Pick.  534,  540. 
wills.  *  Ante,  §  54.    Also  ante,  §   22,  p.  28, 

1  Wms.  [2181,  citing  Wentw.  Ex.  ch.  1,     note  19. 

p,  62.  ^  O'Neall  v.  Farr,  1  Rich.  80,  89. 

2  Ante,  §  53. 


§  57  ORIGIN    AND    NATURE   OF   GIFTS.  115 


BOOK    SECOND. 

OF  GIFTS  EXECUTED    TN"   ANTICIPATION  OF 
IMMEDIATE   DEATH. 


CHAPTER  VII. 

DONATIONES   MORTIS   CAUSA. 

§  57.    Origin   and   Nature  of  Gifts   Mortis    Causa.  —  Alienability, 
being  one  of  the  essential  qualities  of  property/  includes  the  right 
of  the  owner  to  control  its  post  mortem  disposition,  j^j^^^^^ 
even  without  resort  to  the  solemnity  of  a  last  will  or  di^^position 

.      "  morlis  causa. 

testament.  As  he  may  freely  give  his  property  to 
whomever  he  pleases,  his  power  in  this  respect  being  limited  only 
by  the  policy  of  the  law  in  vindicating  the  rights  of  the  family,  or 
of  creditors,  &c.,  so  he  may  annex  any  condition  to  his  gift  which 
is  not  contrary  to  the  policy  of  the  law.  Thus,  he  may,  in  case  of 
anticipation  of  death  from  an  existing  illness  or  impending  peril, 
transfer  his  ownership  to  some  other  person,  on  condition  that,  if 
death  do  not  ensue  as  the  result  of  such  illness  or  peril,  the  gift 
shall  revert  to  the  donor ;  which  transaction  is  known  as  donatio 
mortis  causa.  It  is  apparent  that  the  disposition  of  ^  .j_^  testamen- 
property  causa  mortis  is  in  some  respects  identical  tary  disjwsi- 

..  11,  tiou  in  bfing 

with  testamentary  disposition,  being  ambulatory  or  ambulatory, 
revocable,  conditioned  or  contingent  upon  the  death  uponXath, 
of  the  donor,  and  liable  for  his  debts  ;  2  differing,  how-  ^'^iJJ^.'^^i^^'J^^ 
ever,  chiefly  in  this,  that  under  a  will  the  gift  is  com- 
pleted through  the  interposition  of  an  executor  or  administrator, 
while  the  donor  mortis  causa,  himself  executing  the  Donor  mortis 

.„,,,.  .,11  •  ,  II'  cau.'a  his  own 

gift  by  delivery  to  the  donee,  is,  so  to  speak,  his  own  executor, 
executor.^ 

1  A  nte,  §  3.  ^  Bloomer  v.  Bloomer,  supra. 

2  Bloomer  v.  Bloomer,  2  Bradf.  339, 
346. 


116  DONATIONES   MORTIS   CAUSA.  §  57 

The  legal  recognition  of  the  donatio  mortis  causa  has,  as  the 
name  indicates,  come  down  to  us  Irom  the  civil  law,  deiined  in 
f.--   .  ,.       Justinian's  Institutes  as  •'  a  donation  which  is  made 

Urifjin  m  tne 

civil  law.  to  meet  the  case  of  death,  as  wliere  anything  is  given 

upon  condition  that,  if  any  fatal  accident  befall  the  donor,  the 
person  to  whom  it  is  given  shall  have  it  as  his  own  ;  but  if 
the  donor  should  survive,  or  if  he  should  repent  of  having  made 
the  gift,  or  if  the  person  to  whom  it  has  been  given  should  die 
before  the  donor,  then  the  donor  shall  receive  back  the  thing 
given."  1  Its  principles  were  incorporated  into  the  common  law 
and  transplanted  with  it  to  the  American  States,  of  whose  legal 
systems  they  now  form  a  part,  not  without  having  been  developed 
by  new  and  successive  applications  and  fluctuating  and  inconsist- 
ent decisions.^ 

The  donation  of  property  causa  mortis  has  never  been  favored 
in  law.  It  was  carefully  guarded  under  the  Roman  law,  which 
Never  favored  invalidated  every  such  gift  unless  proved  by  five  wit- 
in  law.  nesses  present  at  the  time,  every  one  of  whom  was 
required  to  be  a  Roman  citizen,  of  full  age,  of  good  character,  and 
not  related  to  either  donor  or  donee.^  Such  strictness  of  proof 
is  not  required  by  the  common  law ;  but  courts  regret  that  this 
species  of  gift  has  not  been  swept  away  by  the  Statute  of  Frauds,* 
and  are  very  cautious  to  require  positive,  clear,  and  satisfactory 
evidence  in  establishing  it,  to  guard  against  fraudulent  pretences 
in  claiming  the  property  of  deceased  persons.^  But  when  found 
to  be  made  in  good  faith,  they  must  be  upheld ;  ^  the  donee  is  not 
obliged  to  disprove  fraud,"  nor  to  prove  that  the  donor  was  of 
sound  and  disposing  mind.^ 

1  Hammond's  Sanders's  Just.,  transl.  of  gin,  16  Gray,  402,  403  ;  Gano  v.  Fisk,  43 
Inst.  lib.  ii.  tit.  vii.,  "  De  Donationibus."  Ohio  St.  462;  and  see  a  collection  of 
The  gift  by  Telemachus  to  Piraeus  is  authorities  on  this  point  in  1-3  Allen,  p  47, 
cited  by  the  author  as  an  illustration.  note  (*)  ;  Parcher  v.  Savings  Institution, 

2  Per  Matthews,  J.,  in  Basket  v.  Has-  78  Me.  470,  473. 

sell,  17  Otto,  602,  610.  ^  Dresser  v.  Dresser,  46  Me.  48,  67 ; 

3  Per  Lowrie,  J.,  in  Headley  v.  Kirby,  Ellis  v.  Secor,  31  Mich.  185, 188;  Shackle- 
18  Pa.  St.  326,  328.  ford  v.  Brown,  89  Mo.  546,  552  ;  Brown  v. 

*  Per  "Walton,  J.,  in  Hatch  v.  Atkinson,  Brown,  18  Conn.  410,  414  ;  Bedell  v.  Carll, 

56  Me.  324,  326.  33  N.  Y.  581,  586. 

5  Per  Gaston,  J.,  in  Shirley  v.  White-  ^  Vandor  v.  Roach,  73  Cal.  614;  s.  c. 

head,  1  Ired.  Eq.  130.     To  same   effect  15  Pac.  R.  354. 

Grymes  v.  Hone,  49  N.  Y.  17,  23 ;  Gass  v.  »  Vandor  v.  Roach,  supra  ;   Bedell  v. 

Simpson,  4  Coldw.  288,  297  ;  Delmotte  v.  Carll,  33  N.  Y.  581,  586. 
Taylor,  1  Redf .  417 ;  Rockwood  v.  Wig- 


§  59  DEFINITIONS    OF   THE    TERM.  117 

§58.  Definitions  of  the  Term.  —  The  definition  ofiven  by  Jus- 
tinian^ is  commented  upon  by  Lord  Loughborough,  who  points  out 
the  inadequacy  of  Swinburne's  definition ^  in  omitting  to  empha- 
size the  ambulatory  or  revocable- character  of  the  donatio  causa 
mortis.^  Numerous  definitions  are  given  by  various  writers  and 
judges.*  A  contributor  to  the  American  Law  Review  gives  this 
as  the  most  comprehensive  and  complete :  "  It  is  a  gift  of  per- 
sonal property  made  by  a  person  in  peril  of  death  and  in  expecta- 
tion of  an  early  demise,  consummated  by  a  manual  delivery  of 
the  subject  of  the  gift  or  of  the  means  of  obtaining  possession  of 
the  same  by  the  donor,  or  by  another  person  in  his  presence  and 
by  his  direction,  to  the  donee,  or  to  a  third  person  for  the  donee, 
and  acceptance  on  the  part  of  the  donee,  followed  by  the  death  of 
the  donor  before  the  donee,  and  defeasible  by  reclamation,  the 
contingency  of  survivorship,  or  delivery  from  the  peril."  ^  It  is 
important  to  remember  that  three  attributes  must  concur  to  give 
validity  to  a  gift  mortis  causa,  viz. :  First,  the  gift  must  be  in- 
duced by  the  donor's  apprehension  of  impending  death ;  Second, 
it  must  be  conditioned  to  take  effect  only  in  the  event  of  death 
happening  from  the  peril  or  cause  producing  the  apprehension, 
and  be  revocable  until  then  ;  and  Third,  there  must  be  delivery  of 
the  thing  given.  If  the  transaction  lack  any  one  or  more  of  these 
elements,  it  cannot  be  supported  as  a  donatio  mortis  causa.^ 

§  59.  By  "Whom,  to  "Whom,  and  of  What  a  Donatio  Mortis  Causa 
may  be  made.  —  Any  person  possessing  the  capacity  to  make  a 
will  may  give  his  property  mortis  causaJ  Hence  a  married 
woman  may  in  this  way  dispose  of  her  separate  prop-  Married  women 
ertv  without  the  consent  of  her  husband  ^  in  those  !^!!r;,?n!!."/l 
States  in  which  she  may  make  a  will  without  such  '^""*"- 

1  Ante,  §  57.  6  Thomas   Frazer  Reddy,  21  Am.  L. 

2  Swinb.  pt.  1,  §  7,  pi.  2.  Rev.  734. 

3  Tate  V.  Hilbert,  2  Ves.  Ill,  118.  6  Wnis.    [771] ;    Grymes  v.   Hone,  49 
*  Wms.  [770] ;  Lord  Cowper  in  Hedges  N.  Y.  17,  20  ;  Dole  v.  Lincoln,  31  Me.  422, 

V.  Hedges,  Prec.  Ch.  269;  2  Kent,  444;  428;  Smith  v.  Kittridge,  21  Vt.  238,  245; 

Story,  Eq.  .Tur.  §  606 ;    Sargent,   J.,  in  Grattan  v.  Appleton,  3  Sto.  755,  763. 
Cutting  V.  Gilman,  41  N.  H.  147, 150, 151  ;  '  Cliampney  v.  Blanchard,  39  N.   Y. 

Woodward,  J.,  in  Micliener  v.  Dale,  23  Pa.  Ill,  113. 

St.  59,  63;    Gibson,  C.  J.,  in  Nicholas  v.  ^  Marshall  v.  Berry,  13  Allen,  43,  45; 

Adams,  2  Whart.  17,  22  ;   3  Redf.  Wills,  and  evidence  that  the  husband  maltreated 

322,  pi,  1  ;  Ashe,  J.,  in  Kiff  v.  Weaver,  94  her  is  competent  to  show  a  motive  and 

N.  C.  274,  276  ;  Dickeschied  v.  Bank,  28  reason  for  the  gift :  Conner  v.  Root,  17 

W  Va.  r,40,  360;  Henschel  r.  Maurer,  34  Pac.  R.  (Col.)  773,  776. 
N.  W.  R.  ( Wis.)  926. 


118  DONATIONES   MORTIS    CAUSA.  §  59 

consent ;  but  otherwise  where  such  consent  is  necessary  to  her 
will ;  ^  and  so  slie  may  receive  sucli  g-ift  to  her  separate  use,^  even 
from  her  husband  ;  and  the  liusband  from  lier.^ 

A  donation  mortis  causa  may  be  made  to  one  in  trust  for  the 
use  and  benefit  of  another,*  and  its  validity  is  not  affected  by  the 
Gift  may  be  ^^^^  *^^^^  ^'^^  doncc  takcs  it  upou  a  trust,  the  terms 
in  trust.  a^j  limitations  of  which  are  prescribed  by  the  donor, 

and  may  vary  according  to  subsequent  events.^  So  it  may  be 
conditioned  that  the  donee  shall  take  nothing  more  from  the 
donor's  estate;^  but  a  gift  as  a  trust  fund,  to  be  used  in  charity 
at  the  entire  and  unlimited  discretion  of  the  donee,  has  been  held 
invalid,  as  being  too  vague  and  uncertain  as  a  trust,  and  not  aided 
by  the  statute  of  43  Eliz.  c.  4,  as  a  charitable  use.'^  So  the  gift 
in  trust  must  fail  if  the  persons  who  are  to  take,  or  the  pro})or- 
tions  to  which  they  are  entitled,  are  not  clearly  indicated ;  and 
the  donee  in  such  case  does  not  take  for  his  own  benefit.^ 

Real  estate  is  generally  held  to  be  incapable   of  being  given 

mortis  causa ;  ^  and  the  reason  given,  to  wit,  that  it  is  incapable 

of  manual   delivery,  was  at   one   time   extended   to 

camioTb^e  given  choscs  in  action,  SO  that  a  promissory  note  payable  to 

causa  mortis.     ^^^^  ^^^^^  ^^^|^  ^^j.  ^^  ^j^^  subject  of  a  gift  mortis 

causa,  because  only  the  donor  himself,  or  his  executor  or  admin- 
istrator, could  compel  its  payment.^o  The  ancient  rule  required 
an  assignment  in  writing,  or  something  equivalent 
in  action Vn-'^^  thereto  in  the  form  of  writing,  and  an  actual  execu- 
cientivrequired  ^.^^^  ^^  ^^^^  transfer,  to  givc  validity  to  the  gift  of  a 
ynitmg.  chose  in  action.^i     But   since  the  equitable  doctrine 

1  Jones  V.  Brown,  34  N.  H.  4-39,  446;  ^  ciough  «.  Clough,  117  Mass.  83.  85. 
Whitney  v.  Wheeler,  116  Mass.  490,  492.            ^  If,  in  such  case,  the  donee  violate  the 

2  Meach  v.  Meach,  24  Vt.  591,  596;  condition,  she  must  account  for  the  anioiint 
Gardner  v.  Gardner,  22  Wend.  526.  A  of  the  donation  ;  Currie  v.  Steele,  2  Sandf . 
gift  inter  vivos  was  sustained  under  tliese  542,  550. 

circumstances  in  Howard  v.  Menifee,  5  ^  Dole  v.  Lincoln,  31  Me.  422,  434 

Ark.  668,  671.  ®  Sheedy   v.   Roach,   124   Mass.   472, 

3  Caldwell  v.  Renfrew,  33  Vt.  213,  219.  477. 

4  Dresser  v.  Dresser,  46  Me.  48,  67  ;  ^  Meach  v.  Meach,  24  Vt.  591. 
Pierce  v.  Boston  Savings  Bank.  129  Mass.  ^'^  Bradley  v.  Hunt,  5  Gill  &  J.  54,  58 ; 
425;  Estate  of  Barclay,  11  Phila.  123,  Headley  v.  Kirby,  18  Pa.  St.  326;  San- 
125 ;  Emery  v.  Clough,  63  N.  H.  552,  555 ;  born  v.  Goodiiue,  28  N.  H.  48,  56  (unless 
Southerland  v.  Southerland,  5  Bush,  501,  the  note  had  been  indorsed  by  the  do- 
594  ;  Blount  v.  Burrow,  4  Bro.  C.  C.  72,  nor). 

75  ;  Hambrooke  v.  Simmons,  4  Russ.  C.  C.         "  Per  Pryor,  J.,  in  Stephenson  v.  King. 
25  ;  Borneman  v.  Sidlinger,  15  Me.  429  ;  3     81  Ky.  425,  432  ,  2  Kent,  446. 
Redf.  Wills,  340,  pi.  7  ;  Wms.  Ex.  17751- 


§  59  HOW    DONATIONS    MAY    BE    MADE.  119 

lias  prevailed  that  clioses  in  action  are  assignable  by  But  now  pass 
the  delivery  of  the  evidence  of  the  grantor's  right,  a  ^^  delivery, 
gift  mortis  causa  becomes  valid  by  such   delivery,  and  may  be 
enforced  like  any  other  assignment  in  equity.^     Hence  promissory 
notes  of   third    parties   may  be   given   mortis   causa  Promissory 
whether  indorsed  by  the  donor  or  not;'^  but  not  the  °"'''^' 
donor's  own  note  payable  after  his  death  to  the  donce.-^     Checks 
or  drafts  of  third  persons,^  certificates  of  deposit  pay-  checks, 
able  to  the  bearer,^  or  payable  to  order  and  indorsed  Certificates  of 

•  1  •     1  T  deposit. 

by  the  payee,^  or  even  without  mdorsement,"  bonds,^  Bonds. 
and  notes  secured  by  mortgage  on  real  estate,^  are  Mortgages. 
pi"oper  subjects  of  gifts  mortis  causa,  and  pass  by  delivery  without 
further  writing.     So  the  donor's  bank-book,  given  bv 

,    ,.  .  .„  .      ,,        -,  ,  Bank-books. 

delivery  mortis  causa,  will  pass  to  the  donee  the  money 
certified  as  deposited  therein,  which  he  may  recover  by  action  in 
the  name  of  the  donor's  executor  or  administrator ;  ^^  an  order  for 
the  payment  of  the  money  deposited,  together  with  an  order  on  the 
donor's  agent  having  possession  of  the  bank-book,  is  not  sufficient, 
if  the  donee  fails  to  obtain  possession  of  the  bank-book. ^^ 

A  policy  of  life  insurance  may  be  delivered  as  a  gift  causa  mor- 
tis; but  the  assignment  of  such  a  policy  without  deliv-  p^iievof  if 
ery  confers  no  right  upon  the  assignee.^     Certificates  insurance. 

1  Ellis  V.  Secor,  31  Mich.  185,  188;  ^  Conner  v.  Root,  17  Pac.  R.  (Col.) 
Stephenson    v.   King,  81    Ky.  425,   430;     773. 

Ashbrook  v.  Ryon,  2  Bush,  228 ;  Turpin  8  Whether    of  a    stranger   or   of  the 

V.   Tiiompson,  2  Mete.   (Ky.)   420.      See  donee:  Lee  ^•.  Boak,  11  Gratt.  182.188; 

Chaser.  Redding,  13  Gray, 418,  420,  where  Wells  i-.  Tucker,  .3  Binn.  366,  370;  Waring 

Shaw,  C.  J.,  reviews  the  cases  showing  v.  Edmonds,  11  Md.  424,  433. 
the  gradual  development  of  the  present  But  in  Overton  v.  Sawyer,  7  Jonos  L. 

rule.  6,  it  is  held  tliat  a  bond  or  sealed  note 

2  Turpin  v.  Thompson,  2  Mete.  (Ky.)  given   by   delivery   merely    may   be   re- 
420  ;  Westerlo  v.  De  Witt,  36  N.  Y.  340,  covered  by  the  personal  representative. 
345;  Brown  r.  Brown,  18  Conn.  410,  413;  9  Carrying  the  mortgage  if  properly 
Bates  V.  Kempton,  7  Gray,  382,  383.  assigned  to  the  donee  :  Chase  v.  Reddin;;, 

3  Flint  V.  Fattee,  33  N.  H.  520,  522,  13  Gray,  418;  or  even  without  assign- 
citing  authorities  pro  and  con.  See  also  ment  :  Borncman  v.  Sidlinger,  15  Me. 
post,  on  the  subject  of  delivery,  §  60.  429,  431  ;  Drake  v.  Heiken,  61  Cal.  .346  ; 

•»  Gibson    v.    Hibbard,   13   Mich.   214,  Hackney    v.    Vrooman,    62    Barb.    650, 

217.  668. 

5  Brooks  y.  Brooks,  12  S.  C.  422.  460;  w  Pierce  v.  Boston  Bank,  129  Mnss. 
Westerlo  v.  De  Witt,  36  N.  Y.  340.  It  423,  430 ;  Hill  v.  Stevenson,  63  Me.  364  ; 
is  not  clear,  in  the  latter  case,  whether  Tillinghast  v.  Wheaton,  8  R.  I.  536  ; 
thecertificateof  deposit  has  been  indorsed  Curtis  v.  Portland  Bank,  77  Me.  151. 

or  not.  "  Con.'er  v.  Snowden,  54  Md.  175,  179. 

6  Basket  r.  Hassell,  17  Otto,  602,  613,  i'-'  Trough's  Estate,  75  Pa.  St.  115. 
citing  and  reviewing  numerous  cases.  118. 


120  DONATIONES   MORTIS   CAUSA,  §  60 

Certificates  of    of  s^ock  of  incorporated  companies  pass  by  delivery 
«tock.  mortis  causa,  without  any  writing,^  entitling  the  do- 

nee, as  equitable  owner,  to  an  action  to  compel  a  proper  transfer 
of  the  legal  title  to  liim.^ 

§60.  Apprehension  of  Death.  —  The  first  requisite  to  a  valid 
donatio  causa  mortis  is,  as  indicated  by  the  name,  that  it  be  made 
Can  only  be  Under  apprehension  of  the  donor's  death  from  an 
made  under       existing  illncss  or  peril.^     If  a  gift  is  made  with  the 

;i)ipreliension  o  i  o 

of  death.  yiew  that  it  take  effect  upon  the  donor's  death,  but 

while  in  ordinary  health  and  not  in  immediate  apprehension  of 
death,  it  may  be  a  valid  gift  inter  vivos,  but  cannot  be  mortis 
causal  So  a  gift  made  in  expectation  of  immediate  death  from 
consumption  cannot  be  supported  as  mortis  causa  if  the  donor, 
after  making  the  gift,  sufficiently  recover  to  attend  to  his  ordinary 
business,  although  he  subsequently  die  from  the  same  disease.^ 
But  it  is  not  necessary  that  there  should  be  an  expression  of  the 
donor's  apprehension  of  death ;  if  the  gift  is  made 
of  death  may  during  his  last  illness,  or  while  in  danger  of  death 
e  presume  .  f^.^^^  ^^^^  other  causc,  it  will  be  presumed  to  have 
been  made  in  apprehension  of  death.^  Nor  has  the  rule  applica- 
ble to  nuncupative  wills,  according  to  which  the  legacy  is  valid 
only  when  made  under  circumstances  rendering  it  impossible  to 
make  a  written  will,  any  application  to  gifts  mortis  causa.'* 

The  validity  of  the  gift  is  not  affected  by  the  time  intervening  be- 
tween the  delivery  and  the  happening  of  the  donor's  death ;  the  only 
condition  is  that  there  be  no  recovery  from  the  illness,^  or  escape 
from  the  peril  then  impending,^  which  induced  the  gift.  In  some 
cases  arising  out  of  the  late  civil  war  it  was  held  that  the  obliga- 


1  Walsh  ".  Sexton,  55  Barb.  251,  256,  »  Weston  v.  Higbt,  17  Me.  287 ;  Rob- 
relying  on  Westerlo  v.  De  Witt,  36  N.  Y.  son  t-.  Robson,  3  Del.  Ch.  51,  67. 

340.  6  Delmotte  v.  Taylor,  1  Redf.  417, 421 ; 

2  Grynies  v.  Hone,  49  N.  Y.  17,  22.  First  National  Bank  v.  Balcom,  35  Conn. 


3  Knott  V.  Hogan,  4  Mete.  (Ky.)  99 
Thompson  v.  Thompson,  12  Tex.  327,  330 
Shirley  v.  Whitehead,  1  Ired  Eq.  130, 132 


351,  358  ;  Merchant  v.  Merchant,  2  Bradf. 
4.32,  442;  Rhodes  v.  Childs,  64  Pa.  St.  18, 
23;  Meach  v.  Meach,  24  Vt.  591,  599. 


Dole  V.  Lincoln,  31  Me.  422,  429;  Ogilvie  ''  Nicholas  v.  Adams,  2  Whart.  17. 

V.  Ogilvie,  1  Bradf.  356,  357 ;  Conser  v.  8  Grymes  v.  Hone,  49  N.  Y.  17,  21 ; 

Snowden,  54  Md.  175,   185;    Parcher  v.  the  donor  in  this  case  died  five  months 

Savings  Institution,  78  Me.  470;  Dicke-  after  the  delivery  of  the  gift, 
schied  v.  Bank,  28  W.  Va.  340,  367.  "^  Dexheimer    v.    Gautier,   5    Roberts. 

*  Blanchard   v.   Sheldon,  43  Vt.  512,  (N.Y.)  216,  223  ;  Milligan,  J.,  dissenting  in 

citing   earlier   Vermont   cases;    Irish   v.  Gass  i>.  Simpson,  4  Coldw.  288, -300;  Gour- 

Nutting,  47  Barb.  370,  384.  ley  v.  Linsenbigler,  51  Pa.  St.  345,  350. 


§  61  APPREHENSION    OF   DEATH.  121 

tions  assumed  by  one  enlisting  as  a  soldier  exposed  liim  to  such 
peril  as  would,  on  tliat  ground,  sup])ort  a  donatio  mor-  Enlisting  as  a 
tis  causa ;^  in  other  cases  this  is  held  differently .^  soldier. 

Since  the  gift  mortis  causa  is  conditioned  to  take  effect  upon 
the  donor's  death  by  the  existing  disorder  or  peril,  it  .   ^  , 

.   "^  '^  '         ,'         Ambulatory 

is  obvious  that  it  is  revocable,  before   the  hapi)cning  during  donor's 
of  that  event,  at  his  pleasure  ;  ^  and  if  it  be  inferable 
from  the  circumstances  that  an  irrevocable  gift  was  intended,  it 
can  be  sustained  only  as  a  gift  inter  vivos.^ 

§  61.  Delivery  of  the  Thing  Given.  — There  can  be  no  valid  gift 
causa  mortis  without  actual  manual  tradition  or  delivery  of  the 
thing  ffiven,  or  some  act  equivalent  thereto.^     Hence 

'  No  valid  gift 

the  promissory  note  of  the  donor  made  payable  to  ^vitIlo^t  actual 
the  donee  after  the  donor's  death  is  not  a  donatio  "^  '^'^'^^' 
mortis  causa  of  the  amount  promised  to  be  paid ;  the  delivery  of 
the  note  in  such  case  is  only  the  delivery  of  a  promise,  not  of  the 
thing  constituting  the  gift.^  So  of  a  certificate  of  deposit  pay- 
able to  order,  and  indorsed  so  as  to  be  payable  after  the  donor's 
death ;  it  is  not  good  as  a  donatio  causa  mortis  for  tlie  want 
of  delivery  of  the  thing  given.'^  That  the  subject  of  the  in- 
tended gift  is  not  within  reach  authorizes  no  excep- 

No  exception 

tion  to  the  rule,**  and  the  statement  by  the  donor  to  of  things  not 
the  donee  of  the  place  in  which  the  subject   of  the 
gift  could  be  found,  and  that  one,  present  at  the  time,  would  give 
it  to  the  donee,  is  not  sufficient,  if  the  thing  is  not  actually  so 
given  before  the  donor's  death.^     So  delivery  to  an  agent,  with 

1  Virgin  v.  Gaitlier,  42  111.  39,  40;  of  the  law  to  this  effect;  Zimmerman  v. 
Baker  v.  Williams,  34  Ind.  647,  549;  Bar-  Streeper,  75  Pa.  St.  147,  154;  Phipps  v. 
ber,  J.,  dissenting  in  Dexheimery.Gautier,     Hope,  16  Oh.  St.  586,  594. 

5  Roberts.  (X.  Y.)  216,  223  ;  Gass  v.  Simp-  e  Bowers  r.  Hurd,  10  Mass.  427  ;  Par- 
son, 4  Coldw.  288,  298  et  seq.  ish  v.  Stone,  14  Pick.  198,  204 ;  Raymond 

2  See  authorities,  p.  120,  n.  9.  v.  Sellick,  10  Conn.  480,  485 ;  Holley  v. 

3  Rhodes  V.  Childs,  64  Pa.  St.  18,  23 ;  Adams,  16  Vt.  206 ;  Craig  v.  Craig,  3 
Wells  V.  Tucker,  3  Bin.  366,  371  ;  Jones  Barb.  Ch.  76,  116. 

V.    Brown,  34  N.   H.   439,  446;  Bunn  v.  ^  Basket  v.  Hassell,  17  Otto,  602,  614, 

Markham,  7  Taunt.  224,  231 ;  Hardwicke,  citing  numerous  English  and  American 

Ch.,  in  Ward  v.  Turner,  2  Ves.  Sen.  431,  cases  ;  Harris  v.  Clark,  3  N.  Y.  93,  113, 

433;  Parish  ?;.  Stone,  14  Pick.  198,  203;  overruling  Wright  v.  Wright,  1  Cow.  598, 

Emery  v.  Clough,  63  N.  H.  552,  554.  in  which   the   contrary  had   been   held  ; 

*  Authorities  supra;  Matthesvs,  J.,  in  Trenholm  v.  Morgan,  6  S.  E.  R.  (S.  C.) 

Basket  v.  Hassell,  17  Otto,  602, 614;  Wms.  721,  726. 

Ex.  [772].  See  post,  §  02.  8  Case  v.  Dennison,  9  R.  I.  88  ;   Eger- 

s  Authorities  antp,   §§  57  et  seq.,  and  ton  ;;  Egerton,  17  N.  J.  Eq.  419,  422. 

post.     Almost  every   case  turning   upon  ^  McGrath  r.  Reynolds,  116  Mass.  566, 

this  subject  contains  an   announcement  569;  Wilcox  v.  Jlatteson,  53  Wis.  23,  26. 


122  DONATIONES   MORTIS   CAUSA.  §  61 

deiivew  to  instructioii  to  him  to  deliver  tlie  gift  to  the  donee  in 
donor's  agent    ^|     gye^t  gf  the  donor's  death,  is  not  sufficient  to  suu- 

iiot  good  as  '  >■ 

mortis  chum;  pgi't  thc  gift  mortis  causu ;  ^  such  delivery,  with  direc- 
but  niav  be  tiou  to  deliver  absolutely,  although  not  before  the  do- 
mter VIVOS.  nor's  death,  will  constitute  a  perfect  gift  inter  vivos ;^ 
it  has  been  held  that,  if  more  be  thus  delivered  than  the  agent  is 
directed  to  deliver,  the  excess  is  not  a  gift,  either  z'w^er  vivos  or 
mortis  causa,  and  passes  to  the  donor's  administrator.^  Not  only 
must  the  delivery  be  actual  and  complete,  so  that  the  donor  has 
no  further  control  or  dominion  over  the  thing  given,  but  the 
donee  must  take  and  retain  possession  until  the  donor's  death.  If 
the  donor  again  has  possession,  the  gift  is  nugatory.* 

Delivery  to  a  third  person  with  direction  to  deliver  to  the  donee, 
Delivery  may  absolutely  to  belong  to  him  if  the  donor  should  die 
'^erson  for'the  ^ithout  making  any  change,  is  sufficient,^  although 
donee.  ^hc  delivery  by  the  third  person  be  not  made  until 

after  the  donor's  deatli.^ 

The  delivery  must  be  as  complete  and  perfect  as  the  nature  of  the 

property  will  admit  of.    Words  alone,  no  matter  how  clearly  they 

mav  express  the  donor's  intention,  are  not  sufficient." 

Words  rIoiig  *' 

cannot  consti-  Thus,  the  gift  of  a  chcck  to  an  infant,  putting  it  into 
ene  y.  j^.^  hands  and  saying,  "  I  give  this  to  baby  for  himself," 
is  not  valid,  if  the  check  is  found  among  the  donor's  papers  after 
his  death.^  So  the  delivery  is  not  sufficient  if  the  donor  retains 
Delivery  not  any  coutrol  or  dominion  over  the  subject  of  the  gif t,^ 
feTatnf  co°rZi  »»  whcrc  ouc  dirccts  the  key  of  a  trunk  to  be  taken 
over,  from  the  place  where  it  is  kept,  goods  to  be  placed  in 

the  trunk,  and  the  key  to  be  returned  to  its  place ;  this  is  not  a 
delivery,  although  the  directions  of  the  owner  are  promptly  exe- 

1  Walter  v.  Ford,  74  Mo.  195  ;  Smith  5  Dole  r.  Lincoln,  31  Me.  422,  429  ; 
V.  Ferguson,  90  Ind.  229,  233;  Newton  v.  "Wells  r.  Tucker,  3  Bin.  306,  370  ;  Cou- 
Snider,  44  Ark.  42  ;  Daniel  v.  Smith,  64  tant  v.  Schuyler,  1  Pai.  316,  318 ;  Borne- 
Cal.  346,  .350;  McCord  v.  McCord,  77  mann  t;.  Sidlinger,  15  Me.  429;  Emery  r. 
Mo.  Ifi6,  174.  Clough,  63  N.  H.  552,  555 ;  Woodburn  v. 

2  Hill  V.  Stevenson,  63  Me.  364,  367  ;  Woodburn,  14  Northeast.  R.  58. 

Minor   v.    Rogers,   40   Conn.    512,    518  ;  ^  Sessions  v.  Moselcy,  4  Cush.  87,  91 ; 

Meriwether  v.  Morrison,  78  Ky.  572.  Jones  v.  Deyer,  16  Ala.  221,  225  ;  Kilby 

3  Beals  V.  Crowley,  59  Cal.  665  (three     v.  Godwin,  2  Del.  Ch.  61,  70. 

of  the  judges  dissenting  on  the  ground  ^  See  authorities  supra  as  to  delivery, 

that  the  excess  may  be  considered  a  gift  ^  Jones  v.  Lock,  L.  R.  1  Ch.  App.  25, 

to  the  agent:  p.  668).  28. 

*  Dunbar  v.  Dunbar,  13  Atl.  R.  (Me.)  »  McDowell    v.    Murdock,    1    Nott   & 

578.  McC.  237,  240. 


§  61  DELIVERY    OF    THE   THING    GIVEN.  123 

cuted,  and  he,  in  his  last  sickness,  apprehending  death,  expresses 
the  desire  to  malce  the  trunk  and  its  contents  a  gift  mortu  causa} 
Nor  is  the  delivery  sufficient  if  the  donor  reserve  any  ^^  j^tgre^t  in 
interest  in  the  thing  given,  or  in  anv  part  thereof;  any  pan  of 
as,  for  instance,  where  he  stipulates  for  a  redelivery 
to  him.^ 

It  seems  to  have  been  held  in  an  early  case  that  delivery  by 
symbol  was  sufficient ;  ^  but  Kent,  in  his  Commentaries,^  calls 
attention  to  the  circumstance  that  the  symbol  in  that  no  delivery  by 
case  was  the  same  as  delivery  of  the  article,  and  that  symbol, 
it  was  the  only  case  in  which  such  a  symbol  is  admitted.  The 
current  of  authority  is  certainly  very  strong  against  the  suffi- 
ciency of  symbolical  delivery,^  unless  it  be  tantamount  unless  it  be 
to  actual  delivery.  Thus,  the  delivery  of  the  key  of  actVrrddheiy. 
a  room  containing  furniture  is  such  a  delivery  of  the  Key  to  a  ware- 
furniture  as  will  support  a  donation  of  it  mortis  causa^ 
not  because  the  delivery  of  the  key  is  a  symbolical  delivery  of 
the  property,  but  because  it  is  the  means  of  obtaining  possession." 
Where  the  subject  of  the  gift  is  capable  of  manual  tradition,  such 
as  coin,  bank  notes,  bonds,  a  watch,  or  the  like,  the  delivery  of 
the  key  of  a  trunk,  chest,  or  box  containing  it  is  not  Key  to  a  trunk 
a  valid  delivery .^  A  late  case,  decided  in  Kentucky,  '''^  ^°^- 
holds  that  the  arbitrary  rule  formerly  existing,  requiring  an  as- 
signment (of  a  chose  in  action)  and  delivery  of  the  identical 
thing  in  order  to  make  valid  a  gift  mortis  causa,  has  long  since 
been  abandoned  ;  and  that,  accordingly,  the  intention  to  give,  with 
the  actual  delivery  of  the  written  evidence  of  the  right  to  the 
thing,  althougli  in  possession  of  another,  under  the  belief  of 
the  donor  that  it  perfects  the  gift,  constitutes  a  valid  gift  causa 
mortis.^ 

1  Coleman  y.  Parker,  114  Mass.  30,  33.     443;   Coleman  v.  Parker,  114  Mass.  30, 

2  Redell  v.  Dobree,  10  Sim.  244,  251;  33;  Miller  v.  Jeffress,  4  Gratt.  472,  479; 
Hawkins  v.  Blewitt,  2  Esp.  663;  Faryu-     Cooper  v.  Burr,  45  Barb.  0,  34. 

harson  c.  Cave,  2  Coll.  35(5,  365.  8  Hatch  r.  Atkinson,  56  Me.  324,  331 ; 

3  Jones  V.  Selby,  Prec.  Ch.  300,  303.        McGrath    v.   Reynolds,   116    Mass.    566, 
*  2  Kent,  *446.  568,  citing  earlier  cases. 

5  2  Kent,  *446 ;  Cutting  v.  Gilman,  41  «  Stephenson  v.  King,  81  Ky.  425,  435, 
N.  H.  147,  152.  citing  and  commenting  upon  numerous 

6  Smith  V.  Smith,  Str.  955;  Hatch  v.  cases:  see  Southerland  v.  Soutlierland,  5 
Atkinson,  56  Me.  324,  330;  Coleman  Bush,  591,  594;  Ellis  v.  Secor,  31  Mich. 
V.  Parker,  114  Mass.  .30,  33;  Jones  v.  185,  188;  Chanipney  v.  Blanchard,  39 
Brown,  34  N.  H.  439,  445  N.  Y.  Ill,  116;  McDowell  v.  Murdock,  1 

7  Ward  V.  Turner,  2  Ves.  Sen.  430,  ISott  &  McC.  237,  239. 


124  DONATIONES   MORTIS   CAUSA.  §  61 

It  is  not  the  possession  of  the  donee  that  is  material,  but  the 

delivery  to  him  by  the  donor ;   delivery  stands  in  the  place  of 

nuncupation,  and  forms  part  of  the  ":\it.^    Hence  proof 

Possession  pre-  ^  '  r  o  i 

viousiy  or  sub-  of  previous  posscssiou  as  bailee,  or  of  after-acquired 

sequentlv  no  .  .  n^    •  n 

proof  of  de-  posscssiou  as  doncc,  IS  not  sufficient  of  itself  to  prove 
ivery.  delivery ,2  and  it  is  a  question  of  fact,  in  such  case, 

whether  there  has  been  a  delivery  sufficient  to  support  the  gift ;  ^ 
,    ,      .  declarations   made  by  the  deceased  subsequently  to 

Declarations  pi  i  •/ 

ill  proof  of  the  alleged  gift  were  held  competent  evidence  to 
e  ivery.  p^Qve  such  delivery,  when  made  to  the  donee,^  but  not 

when  made  to  a  third  person.^  There  is  no  distinction  in  this 
respect,  between  gifts  inte)'  vivos  and  mortis  causa.^  The  doctrine 
of  the  necessity  of  delivery  to  a  valid  donation  causa  mortis  is  in 
some  instances  carried  to  the  extent  of  denying  the  possibility  of 

such  a  gift  where  its  subject  is  a  debt  owing  by  the 
forgiven  causa  doucc  to  the  doiior,  or  a  thing  held  by  the  donee  as 

bailee  or  trustee  of  the  donor,  because  a  debt  or  duty 
cannot  be  released  by  mere  parol,  without  consideration ;  and 
where  there  is  nothing  to  surrender  by  delivery,  there  can  be  no 
gift  mortis  causa?  But  the  more  prevalent  doctrine  is,  that  where 
the  donee  is  in  possession  of  the  subject  of  the  gift,  the  empty 
ceremony  of  giving  it  up  to  the  donor  and  redelivering  it  to  the 
donee  is  not  necessary  to  give  validity  to  the  transaction.^  The 
destruction  of  a  bond  by  the  obligee,  accompanied  by  his  declara- 
tion that  the  money  is  the  obligor's,  is  a  good  discharge  of  the 
debt  mortis  causa.^ 

Whether  a  valid  gift  mortis  causa  can  be  made  in  writing,  or  by 
deed,  is  not  clear  on  authority.     There  are  some  dicta  on  the 

1  Miller  v.  Jeffress,  4  Graft.  472,  480.  '^  Miller  v.  Jeffross,  4  Graft.  472,  480; 

2  McCord  V.  McCord,  77  Mo.  166,  174 ;  French  v.  Raymond,  39  Vt.  623,  626. 
Kenney  v.  Public  Administrator,  2  Bradf.  ^  if  there  be  proof  of  the  relinquish- 
319,  321;   Miller  v.  Jefiress,  supra;  Cut-  ment  of  all  claim  to  and  interest  in  tlie 
ting  V.  Oilman,  41  N.  H.  147,  152.  subject  of    the  gift :  Wing  v.  Merchant, 

3  Hunt  V.  Hunt,  119  Mass.  474,  475.  57  Me.  383,  380 ;  Tenbrook  v.  Brown,  17 
*  Dean  v.  Dean,  43  Vt.  337,  348.  Ind.  410,  413 ;  Hunt  v.  Hunt,  119  Mass. 

5  Rockwood  V.  Wiggin,  16  Gray,  402,     474 ;  Charapney  v.  Blanchard,  39  N.  Y. 
403.  Ill,  116;  Stevens  v.  Stevens,  5  Th.  &  C. 

6  Camp's   Appeal,   36  Conn.  88,  93;     87. 

Irons  V.   Smallpiece,  2   B.  &   Aid.  551 ;  ^  Gardner  v.  Gardner,  22  Wend.  526 ; 

Carpenter  v.  Dodge,  20  Vt.  595 ;  Sessions  Darland   v.  Taylor,    52   Iowa,   503,    506. 

V.  Mosely,  4  Cush.  87;  Appeal  of  Fross,  See    also    BrinckerhofF   v.    Lawrence,    2 

105  Pa.  St.  258,  267 ;  Westerlo  v.  De  Sandf.  Ch.  400,  410,  and  authorities  cited. 
Witt,  36  N.  Y.  340. 


§  62  REVOCABILITY   OF   GIFTS   MORTIS   CAUSA.  125 

subiect   in   EiiGrlish  cases  ;^  but  Williams  is  of    the  „.,^ 

J  Y  '  Li  I  ft. s  CM  van 

opinion,  that,  since  such  instruments  are  testamentary  mortis  i)y  deed 
in  their  nature  and  admitted  to  probate  as  such,  they 
would  not,  unaccompanied  by  delivery,  be  allowed  to  operate  as 
donations  mortis  causa^  The  same  view,  and  for  the  same  reason, 
is  announced  by  Ruffin,  C.  J.,  in  North  Carolina;^  and  in  Mas- 
sachusetts it  is  held  that  gifts  cauaa  mortis  cannot  be  affected  by 
formal  instruments  of  conveyance  or  assignment,  because  sym- 
bolical or  constructive  delivery  is  not  sufficient,  actual  delivery 
or  its  equivalent  being  required.*  If  a  gift  be  made  by  deed, 
although  while  under  the  apprehension  of  death  from  existing  ill- 
ness, it  may  be  valid  as  a  gift  inter  vivos,  which  cannot  be  revoked 
and  is  not  avoided  by  the  grantor's  recovery  from  his  illness.^ 
In  such  cases  equity  will  grant  relief  by  setting  aside  the  convey- 
ance upon  very  slight  evidence  of  mistake,  misapprehension,  or 
misunderstanding  on  the  part  of  the  donor.^  But  there  are  also 
cases  holding  that  there  may  be  a  valid  gift  causa  mortis  by  deed 
in  writing,*^  and  that  in  such  case  actual  delivery  is  not  essential.^ 
§  62.  Revocability  of  Gifts  Mortis  Causa.  —  It  has  already  been 
stated,^  that  an  essential  feature  of  the  gift  mortis  causa  is  its 
ambulatory  nature  before  consummation  by  the  donor's 
death.  Not  only  may  the  donor,  while  living,  revoke  bV  act  of  the 
the  gift  at  his  pleasure,^*'  and  give  it  to  another,^^  °^°^' 
but  revocation  follows  impliedly  in  several  instances  without  the 
donor's  affirmative  action.     Thus,  the  recovery  of  the        ,   , , 

'  ,  ,         revoked  bv 

donor  from  the  illness  or  delivery  from  the  peril  which  recoverj-o'f 
induced  the  gift  works  its  revocation,!^  although  the 


1  Lord  Hardwicke  in  Ward  v.  Turner,  ^  Thompson  v.  Thompson,  12  Tex. 
2  Ves.  Sen.  431,  440  ;  Johnson  r.  Smith,  1  327;  Kemper  i'.  Kemper,  1  Duv.  401. 
Ves.  Sen.  314  ;  Lord  Rosslyn  in  Tate  v.  In  both  of  these  cases,  however,  there 
riilbert,  2  Ves.  Jr.  Ill,  120.  had  been  actual  dehvery  of  the  gift. 

2  Wms.  Ex.  [780],  and  authorities;  »  Meach  v.  Meach,  24  Vt.  591,  598; 
Rlgden  V.  Vallier,  2  Ves.  Sen.  252,  258.  Ellis  v.  Secor,  31  Mich.  185,  193. 

8  Smith  V.  Downey,  3  Ired.  Eq.  268,  9  Ante,  §  57. 

276.  10  Parker  v.  Marston,  27  Me.  196,  203 ; 

*  McGrath  v.  Reynolds,  116  Mass.  566,  Wiggle  v.  Wigle,  6  Watts,  522  ;  Emery  v. 

668.  Clougli,  63  N.  H.  552,  554  ;  Bunn  v.  Mark- 

6  Gilligan  v.  Lord,  51  Conn.  562,  568  ;  ham,  7  Taunt.  224,  231 ;  Ward  v.  Turner, 

McCarty  v.  Kearnan,  86  111.  291.  2  Ves.  Sen.  431,  433 ;  Wells  v.  Tucker,  3 

«  Per   Redfield,   C.   J.,   in    Meach   v.  Bin.  366,  373;  Parish  v.  Stone,  14  Pick. 

Meach,  24   Vt.  591,   593 ;    Houghton   v.  198,  203. 

Houghton,  34  Hun,  212,  214,  citing  other  ^^  Parker  v.  Marston,  snpra. 

authorities.  ^'^  Ante,  §  60. 


126  DONATTONES   MORTIS   CAUSA.  §  63 

recovery  be  temporary,  and  death  may  finally  ensue  from  the  same 
cause.^     The  death  of  the  donee  occurring  before  that 

bv  death  of  „    ,        ,  ,.,         .  ,  ^.  .      .,        . 

(lonoc  before      of  the  douor  likewisc  operates  a  revocation,  similar  in 
donor's  death;    ^^^^^  ^^  ^j^^  lapsing  of  a  bequcst  by  the  death  of  the 

legatee  before  that  of  the  testator.^     And  it  has  been  held  that 
,    , .  ,    ,        the  donatio  mortis  causa  partakes  of  the  nature  of 

bv  birtii  of  ^ 

issue  to  donor,    legacies  to  the  extent  of  being  revocable  by  the  subse- 
quent birth  of  issue  to  the  donor. ^ 

A  donatio  mortis  causa  cannot  be  revoked  by  last  will  or  testa- 
ment, although  there  be  a  different  testamentary  disposition  of 
Not  bv  last  ^^  specific  thing  given  mortis  causa,  because  the  will 
'»^ii'; '  speaks  as  of  the  moment  of  the  testator's  death,  wliich 

has  vested  the  previous  gift  irrevocably  in  the  donee,*     But  the 
,    ,         aift  of  a  legacy  to  one  who  has  received  a  gift  mortis 

but  pift  of  a         ^  1^      J  ^  o  ^ 

leiiary  may  be    causa  may  raisc  the  presumption  that  the  former  is  a 
substitution  for  the  latter;^  and  the  donee  may  some- 
times be  compelled  to  choose  between  them,  not  being  entitled  to 
both.^^ 

The  gift  causa  mortis  is  defeasible  by  reclamation,  or  any  act 
of  the  donor  inconsistent  with  the  gift  and  indicating  his  purpose 
to  resume  possession  thereof.'^  Hence  the  gift  is  revoked  by  the 
demand  of  the  donor  for  a  redelivery,  although  the  donee  refuse 
to  surrender  it.^ 

§  63.  Liability  of  Gifts  Mortis  Causa  to  Creditors  of  the  Donor.  — 

Like  gifts  inter  vivos  and  legacies,  gifts  mortis  causa  are  subject 

to  defeasance  in  favor  of  the  donor's  creditors,  because, 

Gifts  mortis  •       -     .  i  a.       ■  i  •  j.     q 

causa  liable  to    as  agaiust  them,  one  cannot  give  away  his  property.^ 

s,    j)Qjjgpg  causa  mortis  take  their  title  to  the  property 

subject  to  the  contingent  right  of  the  administrator  to  reclaim  it, 

and  are  bound  to  have  it  forthcoming  when  required  for  the  pay- 

1  See  ante,  §  59.  443 ;  Nicholas  v.  Adams,  2  Wliart.  17,  22 ; 

2  Merchant  v.  Merchant,  2  Bradf.  432,  Sanborn  v.  Goodhue,  28  N.  H.  48,  affirm- 
444  (mentioning,  as  the  three  conditions  ing  Marston  v.  Marston,  which  however 
annexed  to  the  gift  under  the  civil  law,  turns  upon  a  gift  inter  vivos;  Emery  v. 
either  of  which  would  defeat  the  dona-  Clough,  63  N.  H.  552,  554. 

tion,  1.  the  recovery  of  the  donor  ;  2.  re-  ^  Jones  v.  Selby,  Prec.  Ch.  .300,  304. 

pentance  of  the  gift ;  3.  death  of  the  donee  ^  Johnson  v.  Smith,  1  Ves.  Sen.  314. 

before    the    donor's    decease:   p.    445);  '  Emery  r.  Clough,  63  N.  H.  552,  554 ; 

Michener  v.  Dale,  23  Pa.  St.  59,  63 ;  Wells  Marshall  v.  Berry,  13  Allen,  43,  46. 
V.  Tucker,  3  Binn.  366,  370.  ^  Merchant  v.  Merchant,  2  Bradf.  432, 

8  Bloomer  v.  Bloomer,  2  Bradf  339,  444. 
348.  »  Emery  v.  Clough,  63  N.  H.  552,  554. 

*  Merchant  v.  Merchant,  2  Bradf.  432, 


§  63  LIABILITY   OF   GIFTS   TO   CREDITORS.  127 

mcnt  of  debts  ;  ^  or  subject  to  be  taken  by  creditors  in  satisfaction 
of  their  claims  existing  at  the  time  the  gift  was  made  ;2  ^^^  ^^^  ^^  ^^ 
but  subsequent  creditors  have  recourse  only  uj)on  proof  sf'iuent  crcdi- 
of  fraudulent  intent  under  existing  or  anticipated  insol- 
vency.^    The  donee  is  not  affected  by  the  decree  of  the  probate 
court  charging  the  administrator  with  the  property,  and  ordering 
distribution  ;  *  nor  is   the  gift  avoided  by   the  insol- 

„  and  only  to  the 

vency  of  the  donor  s  estate  further  than  may  be  neces-  extent  of  such 
sary  for  the  payment  of  debts.    If,  therefore,  the  donee 
will  offer  to  pay  such  debts  as  may  be  legally  established,  the 
administrator  cannot  maintain   an  action   against  them   for  the 
restitution  of  the  gift.^ 

To  what  extent  such  gifts  will  be  permitted  to  interfere  with 
the  rights  of  widows  aud  infant  children  of  the  donor,  does  not 
appear  very  clearly.  This  subject  has  not  received  the  Rights  of 
attention  from  courts  and  legislatures  which  its  rcla-  nor^hifrhcn'"^' 
tion  to  the  obligations  arising  from  marriage  and  the  aK:""sf  donee. 
birth  of  issue  seems  to  demand.  Surrogate  Bradford  held  this 
method  of  disposing  of  one's  property  to  be  testamentary  to  the 
extent  of  bringing  it  within  the  operation  of  the  statute  of  Con- 
necticut declaring  a  will  revoked  by  the  subsequent  birth  of  a 
child  not  therein  provided  for,^  because  "in  the  nature  and  reason 
of  things  there  seems  no  substantial  ground  for  not  applying  the 
same  principle  to  unwritten  as  to  written  legacies."  •  It  has,  on 
the  other  hand,  been  expressly  held,  that  the  right  of  the  widow 
is  to  the  property  of  which  the  husband  died  seised  or  possessed ; 
and  because  gifts  mortis  causa  have  their  full  effect  in  the  lifetime 
of  the  donor,  they  do  not  impair  the  rights  of  the  widow.'^  Upon 
which  Judge   Redfield  remarks :  "  It  seems  to  us  very  question- 

1  Mitchell  V.  Pease,  7  Cush.  350,  353,  question  whether  the  administrator  has 

citing  Toll. '233  (4th  ed.)  ;  Tate  y.  Hilbert,  power  to  cause  such  conveyances  to  be 

2  Ves.  Jr.  Ill,  120  ;  the  case  of  Holland  v.  set  aside,  or  whether  the  creditors  must 

Cruft,  20  Pick.  321,  328,  announces  the  resort  to  chancery,  770.9/,  §  206. 
Massachusetts  law  in  relation  to  convey-  ■*  Lewis  v.  Bolitho,  6  Gray,  137,  138. 

ances  inter  vivos  in  fraud  of  creditors.  ^  Chase  v.  Eedding,  13  Gray,  418,  422. 

■^  Chase  v.  Redding,  13  Gray,  418,420;  «  Bloomer  v.  Bloomer,  2  Bradf.  339, 

Borneman  v.  Sidlinger,  15  Me.  429,  431 ;  348. 
Michener  v.  Dale,  23  Pa.  St.  59,  64.  '  Shaw,  C.  J.,  in  Chase  v.  Eedding,  13 

3  Such  is  the  Jaw  as  to  conveyances  Gray,  418;  Cranson  ;•.  Cranson,  4  Mich. 

inter  vivos,  and  there  is  no  distinction  in  230 ;  Wells,  J.,  in  Marshall  v.  Berry,  13 

this  respect  between  such  and  donations  Allen,  43,  46,  applying  same  principle  to 

mortis  causa :  Marshall  c.  Berry,  13  Allen,  tlie  wife's  gifts   without   consent  of  the 

43,  46.     See  on  this  point,  and  as  to  the  husband. 


128  DONATIONES   MORTIS   CAUSA.  §  63 

able,  whether  a  man  of  substance  can  be  allowed  to  dispose  of  his 
whole  estate,  and  leave  his  widow  a  beggar,  l)y  the  means  of  this 
species  of  gift,  which  is  clearly  of  a  testamentary  character,  where 
the  statute  expressly  provides  that  the  widow  may  waive  the  pro- 
visions of  the  will  and  come  in  for  her  full  share  of  the  personal 
estate,  under  the  statute,  by  way  of  distribution.  No  similar  stat- 
ute has  ever  existed  in  England  in  favor  of  widows,  and  that 
question  could  not  therefore  arise  there.  And  it  is  possible  the 
American  courts  have  felt  too  reluctant  to  recognize  the  differ- 
ence, in  this  respect,  between  the  widow  and  next  of  kin."^ 

The  question  has  repeatedly  engaged  the  attention  of  the 
Supreme  Court  of  Missouri,  and  was  uniformly  decided  in  the 
spirit  of  the  illustrious  judges  above  quoted.  Judge  Norton, 
delivering  the  unanimous  opinion  of  the  court,^  quotes  the  lan- 
guage of  Judge  Scott  3  as  follows :  "  Although  dower  is  given  in 
personal  estate  by  our  statute,  yet  it  was  not  thereby  intended  to 
restrain  the  husband's  absolute  control  of  it  during  his  life,  to 
give  and  dispose  of  it  as  he  wills,  'provided  that  it  he  not  done  in 
expectation  of  death  with  a  view  to  defeat  the  ividoiv's  dower.  The 
husband  may  do  as  he  pleases  with  his  personal  property  subject 
to  this  restriction.  After  the  enjoyment  of  the  property  in  the 
most  absolute  manner  during  almost  his  entire  life,  the  law  will 
not  permit  him,  at  the  approach  of  death,  and  with  the  view  to 
defeat  his  wife's  dower,  to  give  it  away.  If  such  a  disposition 
were  allowed,  the  efficacy  of  the  statute  conferring  dower  would 
depend  on  the  whim  or  caprice  of  the  husband."  *  The  court 
held,  however,  that  the  widow  has  no  claim  against  the  general 
estate  for  the  property  so  disposed  of,  her  relief  being  in  equity 
to  set  aside  the  fraudulent  disposition,  and  to  charge  the  grantee 
with  a  trust  in  her  favor. 

In  Louisiana  gifts  causa  mortis  cannot  exceed  a  certain  propor- 
tion of  the  estate.^  In  New  Hampshire  the  gift  must  be  proved 
by  the  testimony  of  two  indifferent  witnesses,  upon  petition  by 
the  donee  to  the  probate  court,  filed  within  sixty  days  after  the 
donor's  death.^     In  Pennsylvania  it  was  held  that  the  mere  gift 

1  3  Redf.  on  Wills,  323,  pi.  3,  note  7.  32  Mo.  464 ;  and  the  same  doctrine  has 

2  In  Straat  v.  O'Neil,  84  Mo.  68,  71.  been  announced  in  the  case  of  Davis  v. 

3  In  Stone  v.  Stone,  18  Mo.  389.  Davis,  5  Mo.  183." 

4  "  This   case,"   says   Judge    Norton,  *  Ante,  §  17. 

"  was  followed  in  the  cases  of  Tucker  v.  "  Gen.  L.  1878,  p.  456,  §  17 ;  Emery  v. 

Tucker,  29  Mo.  350,  and  Tucker  v.  Tucker,     Clough,  63  N.  H.  552,  653. 


§  63  LIABILITY    OF    GIFTS   TO    CREDITORS.  129 

of  all  the  property  of  one  since  deceased,  to  take  effect  after  his 
death,  is  not  valid  as  a  donatio  causa  woriis,  whether  accompanied 
by  delivery  or  not  ;^  not  because  a  man  may  not  so  dispose  of  all 
his  property,  but  because  there  is  no  specific  reference  to  the 
property,  and  because  the  language  is  testamentary,  and  the 
delivery  only  constructive ;  it  is  no  objection,  therefore,  that  such 
a  gift  comprises  the  principal  part  of  the  donor's  estate.^ 

It  seems  that  the  principles  governing  the  construction  of  wills 
are  applicable  to  gifts  mortis  causa,  and  that  the  presumption 
against  fiduciary  adviser.s  attending  testators  is  equally  valid 
against  a  clergyman  who  receives  a  gift  mortis  causa  while  attend- 
ing the  donor  in  extremis? 

1  Headley  v.  Kirby,  18  Pa.  St.  326.  ^  Per  Sugden,  Ch.,  in   Thompson  v. 

'      2  Michener  v.  Dale,  23  Pa.  St.  59,  64.       Heffernan,  4  Dru.  &  W.  285,  291. 


VOL.  I.  — 9 


PART    SECOND. 

OF  THE  DEVOLUTION  BY   OPERATION   OF  LAW. 


CHAPTER   VIII. 

DESCENT   AND    DISTRIBUTION    OF   PROPERTY  OF    INTESTATES. 

§  64.  Nature  and  Origin  of  the  Rules  of  Descent  and  Distribu- 
tion.—  In  default  of  the  testamentary  disposition  of  the  property 
Princi  le  of  ^^  ^  deceased  person,  the  law  disposes  of  the  same 
devolution.  precisely  as  the  deceased  himself  would  do  if  acting 
rationally,  and  without  motive  or  influence  of  an  extraneous  na- 
ture. The  family  of  a  person  have  claims  upon  him  while  living 
which  are  recognized,  and  to  a  great  extent  enforced  by  the  law : 
a  man  may  be  compelled  to  provide  for  his  wife  and  children  the 
necessaries  for  their  support  and  comfort,  and  for  the  proper  edu- 
cation of  his  children.  But  he  may  freely  alien  any  of  his  prop- 
erty during  his  lifetime,  even,  as  has  been  shown,i  on  the  very 
point  of  death,  or  dispose  of  the  same  by  last  will,  subject  only  to 
such  restrictions  as  the  law  imposes  for  the  protection  of  the  wife 
and  surviving  minor  children.^  The  statutory  law  of 
tleVa^sTs'S^^  England  and  America  (except  in  the  State  of  Louisi- 
devoiution.  ^^^^  allows  gifts  and  devises  or  bequests,  in  derogation 
of  the  interest  of  his  own  family,  to  a  greater  extent,  perhaps,  than 
any  other  of  the  civilized  nations ;  nevertheless,  its  presumptions 
and  intendments,  whenever  occasion  exists  for  the  application  of 
such,  are  in  favor  of  the  family.  Thus  it  is  the  family  which  fur- 
nishes the  basis  and  content  of  the  law  regulating  the  devolution 
of  the  property  of  intestates.^ 

1  Ante,  §  59.  only  makes  such  a  will  for  the  intestate 

2  Ante,  §§  8,  17.  as  a  fatlier,   free  from  tlie  partiality  of 
8  "  The   Statute  of  Distribution  does     affections,    should   himself    make  ;    and 

not  break  into  any  settlement  made  by  this  I  may  call  a  Parliamentarj/  Will "  : 
the  father ;  it  only  meddles  with  what  Lord  Raymond,  in  Edwards  v.  Freeman, 
was  left  undisposed  of  by  him,  and  that     2  P.  Wms.  435,  443. 


§  64  EULES   OP   DESCENT    AND    DISTRIBUTION.  131 

This  subject  is  so  thoroutilily  treated  in  tlie  statutes  of  every 
State  of  the  Union,  that  there  is  neither  room  nor  occasion  for 
an  extensive  general  discussion  of  its  principles  ai)art  ^^^pg^,  ^^^., 
from  a  reference  to  their  provisions.     But  it  may  be  cned  i.y 

stututes, 

necessary  to  bear  in  mind,  that  in  most  of  the  States 
the  statutes  of  descent  and  distribution  are  subject,  and  to  be  con- 
strued witli  reference,  to  the  law  concerning  dower,  tenancy  by  the 
curtesy,  partnership,  homesteads,  and  exemption,  and  particularly 
to  the  peculiarly  American  provisions  in  favor  of  the  widow  and 
minor  children  for  their  immediate  support,  which  will  be  noticed 
hereafter.i  It  may  also  serve  the  j)urposes  of  both  ^oj-tiy  foUow- 
students  and  practitioners  to  notice  that,  while  the  '^',^f^"gSi'f'* 
American  statutes  of  descent  and  distribution  are  ex-  Descents  and 

.  .        ,  .       Distribution, 

ceedingly  diverse  m  their  details,  they  are  m  the  main 

modelled  after  and  mostly  approximate  in  their  general  results,  the 

English  Statute  of  Distributions.^  which  in  its  turn  is     , .  ,  .  ,  , 

»  '  which  IS  taken 

mainly  borrowed  from  the  civil  law,^  so  that  the  con-  from  the  civil 

law. 

struction  and  practice  under  it  have  been  governed 

more  by  the  rules  of  the  civil  law  than  of  the  common  law.^     It 

Avill  also  be  borne  in  mind,  that  the  distribution  of  ^ 

Fevsonal  prop- 

personal  property  of  an  intestate  must  be  according  to  erty  according 
the  law  of  the  country  or  State  of  which  he  was  a  owner's  domi- 
domiciled  inhabitant  at  the  time  of  his  death,^  with-  ^^  ' 
out  regard  to  the  place  of  either  the  birth  or  death,  or  the  situa- 
tion of  the  property  at  the  time ;  but  that  real  estate  real  estate 
descends  according  to  the  law  of  the  place  where  it  is  fhe°iaw"?ei° 
situated.6  '■-  ^'"^- 

1  See  post,  §  77  et  seq. ;  dower,  §  105  dred :   1  Wms.   [419],  citing  Mentney  v. 

et  seq. ;  curtesy,  §  121 ;  partnership,  §  123  Petty,  Prec.  Ch.  593,  and  otl  er  English 

et  seq. ;  homestead,  §  94  et  seq  cases.     It  will  appear  infra  that  the  stat- 

•-  22  &  23  Car.  II.  c.  2,  §  10.     "  The  utes  of  most  States  so  provide, 

provisions  of  this  law  stand  in  striking  ^  Statutes  not  in  force  on  the  day  of 

contrast  witli   the   canons  of  descent  of  the  intestate's  death  cannot,  it  is  evident, 

the   common    law.      Primogeniture,   the  govern  the  descent  of  his  estate :  Sarver 

preference    of   males  over   females,   the  i".  Real,  36  Kans.  555,  559.     So  a  vested 

blood  of  the  first  purchaser,  the  rule  that  remainder    descends   under   the    law   in 

property  never  ascends,  the  exclusion  of  force  at  the  time  of   the  vesting  of  the 

tlie   half   blood,  —  all  these  fundamental  estate  in  expectancy,  and  is  not  affected 

rules   of   the   common  law  are  violated  by   the   law  governing   descents   at   the 

by  the  Statute  of  Distributions.    Its  great  termination  of   the   intervening   estate  : 

object  was  equality  "  :  Carr,  J.,  in  Davis  Curtis   v.  Fowler,    33  N.  W.  R.   (Mich.) 

V.  Kowe,  6  Hand.  355,  361.  804. 

3  2  Kent,  422.  6  Lingen  i'.  Lingen,  45  Ala.  410,  412. 

*  3  Redf  on  Wills,  422,  pi.  3;  at  least  See  as  to  domicil,  post,  §  205,  also  §  157 

as  to  the  proximity  of  degrees  of  kin-  et  seq. 


> 


132  PKOPEIITY    OF   INTESTATES.  §  65 

The  term  "descent"  is  usually  applied  to  the  devolution  of 
real  estate,  and  "  distribution  "  to  that  of  personal  property  ;  and 
in  most  States  a  distinction  is  still  observed  in  the  devolution  of 
these  two  classes  of  property,  arising',  no  doubt,  out  of  the  former 
tenure  of  real  estate  under  the  feudal  system.^ 

§  65.  Rights  of  Children.  —  The  legitimate  result  of  the  ethical 
union  of  the  sexes  is  the  continuance  of  the  race,  which  is  thus 
seen  to  depend  for  its  permanency  upon  the  marriage  institution 
and  its  direct  result,  the  Family.  As  the  instinct  of  self-preserva- 
tion is  the  highest  law  of  all  living  things,  so  it  is  an  overruling 
necessity  for  the  State  to  vindicate  and  preserve  the  Family, 
whose  extinction  it  could  not  survive.  In  recognition  of  this 
necessity  all  States  have  at  all  times  secured  to  the  several  mem- 
bers of  a  family  in  the  strict  sense  (father,  mother,  and  minor 
children)  the  enjoyment  of  their  common  property  (by  repre- 
sentation through  its  head),  and  the  civil,  canon,  and  common 
law,  as  well  as  the  English  and  American  statutes  regulating  the 
descent  and  distribution  of  the  property  of  deceased  intestates,  are 
^, ., ,      .  unanimous  in  placing  children  and  the  descendants  of 

Children  m  i  o  j-  t 

first  degree  dcccascd  children  of  the  intestate  m  the  nrst  degree 
as  heirs.  The  apparent  exception  to  this  at  common 
law,  and  under  the  statutes  of  some  of  the  States  following  it,  of 
a  husband  taking  the  personal  property  of  a  deceased  wife  in 
exclusion  of  her  children,  is  not  an  exception  in  reality  ;  for  at 
common  law  the  personal  property  of  a  wife  is  that  of  her  hus- 
band, so  that  it  cannot  strictly  be  said  that  she  died  intestate  as 
to  such,  because  she  had  none  to  leave.  Nor  is  it,  strictly  con- 
sidered, an  exception  to  this  rule  to  allow  the  husband  of  a 
deceased  wife  to  enjoy  her  lands  during  his  lifetime,  or  to  accord 
to  a  widow  her  dower  estate  ;  for  in  either  case  the  surviving 
parent  is  bound,  as  the  head  of  the  remaining  family,  for  the  sup- 
port of  the  minor  children,^  and  the  property  thus  still  goes  to 
the  benefit  of  such. 

It  is  not  necessary,  therefore,  to  recite  the  provisions  of  the 
statutes  of  the  several  States  as  to  their  respective  shares  of 
Children  take  inheritance  of  the  real  or  personal  estate  of  a  deceased 
sondprojertv  pareut.  In  all  of  the  States  children  inherit  both 
in  equal  shares,  ^eal  and  personal  estate  in  equal  shares,  the  descend- 
ants of  deceased  children  taking  by  representation,  or  stocks  {per 
1  Ante,  §§  12-16.  2  Schoul.  Dom.  Rel.  §§  236,  237. 


§  6G  THE   SURVIVING   HUSBAND    AS    HEIR.  133 

Stirpes),  that    is,  the  children  of   a   deceased   child  fiosreiubn.fs 

Ti         .       1  11  of  flfceased 

or  descendant  taking  collectively  sucli  share  as  ciiiidien,  by 
the  deceased  child  or  other  descendant  would  have  '"'^P''^*''"  *""°- 
taken  If  alive  at  the  time  of  the  intestate's  death.  Where  the 
share  to  which  the  children  are  entitled  is  affected  by  [)rovisions 
in  favor  of  the  father  or  mother,  the  modification  will  be  noticed 
in  connection  with  the  rights  of  such  {)arent. 

Adopted  children  acquire,  by  the  act  of  adoption  in  accordance 
with  the  statute,  if  so  provided,  the  same  rights  as  if  Adopted 
they  were  the  issue  of  the  adojiting  parents.^  ciuidren. 

§  GQ.  The  Surviving  Husband  as  Heir.  —  Upon  the  death  intes- 
tate of  a  married  woman,  the  husband  is  entitled,  at  Husband  takes 
common  law  and  affirmed  by  the  Statute  of  Frauds,^  erty  to'^tiK'^ex- 
to  all  her  personal  property ,«  whether  she  left  surviv-  it'Ttcom-''' 
ing  children  or  descendants  or  not ;  and  so  by  the  stat-  "'''"  ^^^y^ "^^g 
utes  of  Delaware,^  Georda,^  Keiituckv,*^  Oregon,^  and 

r,       '        .        "   .  ,     n  ,  1     •       -p  XI  In  other  States, 

Pennsylvania.^     He  is  entitled  to  take  as  heir,  it  there  when  there 
be  no  child  nor  descendant,  nor  brother  or  sister,  nor  dren"°parents, 
father  or  mother,  nor  any  next  of  kin,  under  the  stat-  ^jXr^Tor'^'their 
utes  of  Alabama,^  Arkansas,^^  Florida,^^  Louisiana,^^  descendants. 
Maine,!^  Maryland,!^  Massachusetts,!^  Minnesota,i^Tennessee,i^  Vir- 
ginia,!^  and  West  Yirgiiiia.^^     Togetlier  with  children  i'^^JJ'/^'^/f;;- 

or   descendants  in  California.^o  Colorado,^!  Floi-ida,-^  children  or  de- 
scendants. 

1  As  to  tlie  consequences  of  adoption,  ^  Bright.  Purd.  Dip:.,  p.  930,  §  4. 
see  post,  §  60.                                                            ^  Code,  1886,  §  1915. 

2  2!;)  Car.  II.  c.  3,  §  2.5.  i"  Dig.  St.  1884,  §  2528. 

8  "  If    he   obtain    possession    of    the  "  McClell.  Dig.  1881,  p.  469,  §  3. 

•wife's    personal   property   without    suit,  i-  Code,  1870,  art.  017. 

and  without  taking  administration,  lie  is  i-'  Rev.  St.  188o.  p.  (510,  §  1. 

entitled  to  hold   it  subject  to  the  claims  "  Hinck.  Test.  L ,  §  1259. 

of  her  creditors  ;    and,  in   case  another  ^^  Smith,  Pr.  L.  188. 

person  takes  administration,  he  will  hold  16  st.  1878,  p.  565,  §  3,  If  9. 

the  property'  in  trust  for  the  iuisband  of  ^"  St.  1884,  §  3272. 

Iter  representatives,  after  payment  of  lier  '"  Code,  1887,  §  2548,  pi.  10. 

debts  "  :  Bellows,  .J.,  in  Weeks  v.  Jewett,  "  Kelley's  Rev.  St.  1870,  ch.  66,  §  ]. 

45  N.  11.  540,  541,  citing  numerous  Eng-  -"  One  half  of  real  and  personal  estate, 

lish  and  American  cases.  if  there  be  no  issue,  or  one  child,  or  the 

*  Laws,  Rev.  1874,  p.  548,  §  32.  issue  of  a  deceased  child  ;  one  third,  it' 

&  Except  the  separate  estate  without  there  be  more  than  one  cluld,  or  issue  of 

limitation  or  remainder  over,  which  can  more,  or  child  and  issue  of  deceased  child 

and  does  take  effect  if  she  leave  also  cliil-  or  children  :  Civ.  Code,  §  1386. 

dren   or  descendants,  of  whicli  the  bus-  -i  Gen.  St.  1883,  §  1039.    One  half  of 

band  and  ca(;h  cliild,  or  the  descendants  of  all  personal  and  real  estate,  if  there  be 

a  deceased  child,  take  an  equal  share,  de-  descendants;   all,  if  there  be  none. 

scendants/.<-?- sm/jps:  Code,  1882,  §2484.  --  McClell.    Dig.    1881,   p.   471,   §  12. 

«  Gen.  St.  1887,  ch.  31,  §  11.  Child's  share,  if  there  be  such,  but  if  no 

"  Code,  1887,  §  3009,  pi.  4.  descendants,  all. 


134  PROPERTY   OF    INTESTATES.  §  67 

,    ,     ,  Illinois,^    Indiana.^  lowa,^   Kansas,^  Mississippi,^  Ne- 

In  the  absence  '  r  i    ' 

of  descendants  vada,^  New  Hampshire,"  South  Carolina,^  and  Texas.^ 
heirs  of  second  If  the  wife  leave  no  issue,  nor  other  lineal  descend- 
egiee  o  wi  e.  ^^^^^^  ^^^^  father,  mother,  brother  or  sister,  nor  issue 
of  brother  or  sister,  the  estate  descends  to  the  husband  in  Michi- 
inthe  absence  g^^^^  ^^^^  MissouH.^i  If  the  wifo  die  witliout  leaving 
of  descendants,  issue  or  descendants,  the  husband  takes  the  whole  es- 
tate in  Ohio,^'^  Vermont,^^  and  Wisconsin.^*  In  the  absence  of  any 
statutory  provision,  he  is  entitled  by  the  common  law 

Curtesy 

to  his  estate  by  the  curtesy ;  in  some  of  the  States 
this  is  affirmatively  announced  by  statute.^^ 

§  67.  The  Widow  as  Heiress.  —  It  is  not  proposed,  in  this  con- 
nection, to  treat  of  the  dower  and  other  common  law  rights  of  the 
widow,  nor  of  the  provisions  made  in  the  several  American  States 
for  the  immediate  support  of  herself  and  family  upon  the  death  of 
her  husband,  all  of  which  will  be  considered  in  its  proper  place ;  ^^ 
but  only  to  point  out  her  rights  as  an  heiress  of  her  husband. 

At  the  common  law,  the  widow  was  originally  entitled  to  her 
reasonable  part  of  the  goods  and  chattels  of  her  deceased  hus- 
band, which  was  one  half  if  he  died  without  issue  surviving,  and 

1  Starr  &  Curt.  St.  1885,  p.  879,  IT  1-  tliere  be  one  child  or  issue  of  one  child, 
One  third  of  the  personalty,  if  there  be  or  no  descendants,  but  a  father  or  moth- 
descendant  or  descendants  ;  one  half  of  er,  or  brothers  and  sisters ;  but  if  there 
the  real  estate  and  all  of  the  personalty,  be  none  such,  then  all. 

if  no  descendants,  but  other  heirs;  and  ^  Gen.   L.    1878,   p.    475,   §  15.     One 

all,  if  there  he  no  kindred.  third,  if  the  wife  leave  surviving  child  or 

2  Rev.  Stat.  1881,  §2485.    One  third     issue;  one  half,  if  there  be  no  issue. 

of  the  real  estate  subject  to  the  wife's  ^  Kev.  St.  1882,  §  1845.    One  third,  if 

debts  contracted   before  marriage  abso-  there  be  a  child  or  descendants  ;  one  half, 

lutely,  and  all  the  personal  property,  if  if  there  be  no   descendants,  but  father, 

there   be   no  child  :    §  2488 ;  if  no  child,  mother,  or  siv-iters  of  the   whole   blood  ; 

but  a   father  or  mother  survive,   three  two  thirds,  if   there  be   no  descendants, 

fourths  of  the  personal  and  real  estate ;  father,  mother,  brother  or  sisters  or  their 

or  all,  if  the  estate  do  not  exceed  one  descendants  of  the  whole  or  half  blood, 

thousand   dollars :    §  2489.     If  the  wife  nor  lineal  ancestors  ;  all,  if  there  be  no 

leave  neither  child,  father,  nor  mother,  kindred, 

all  to  the  husband  :  §  2490.  ^  Rev.  St.  1888,  art.  1646. 

3  Miller's    Rev.    Code,    1880,   §2440.  w  Howell's  St  §  5772 «,  1  8,  p.  1503. 
One  third  in  value  of  all  legal  and  equi-  "  Rev.  St.  1879,  §  2161. 

table  estate.  i^  Rgv.  St.  1880,  §  4158,  T[  2. 

*  Dassler's  Comp.  L.  1885,  §§  2266,  ^'^  Unless  he  elect  to  take  by  curtesy, 
2246.  One  half  of  the  real  and  personal  he  takes  the  whole  estate  if  it  do  not  ex- 
estate,  and  if  there  be  no  issue,  the  whole  ceed  .$2000  ;  and  of  all  in  excess  of  |2000 
of  the  real  and  personal  estate.  one  half.     Rev.  L.  1880,  §  2230. 

5  Rev.   Code,   1880,   §  1271.     Child's  i*  Rev.  St.  1878,  §  2270, 1[  2. 
share,  if  there  be  such;  all,  if  there  be  ^^  Post,  §  121. 

no  descendants.  '^  As  to  dower,  see  post,  §  105  et  seq.; 

6  Comp.  L.  1873,  §  794.    One  half,  if    support  of  the  family,  ch.  ix. 


§67 


THE    WIDOW    AS    HEIRESS. 


135 


one  third  if  he  left  children  or  descendants.^     Whether  jj^^^^^^^jg 
this  was  really  the  common  law,  or  the  custom  of  par-  part  at  com- 

'  nion  law. 

ticular  places,  as  has  been  asserted,^  is  not  now  proht- 
able  to  examine,  for  the  English  Statute  of  Distributions  fixes 
the  distributive  share  to  which  the  widow  is  entitled  by  the  same 
rule,  and  the  statutes  of  most  States  are  so  explicit  on  this  point, 
that  questions  will  rarely  arise  Avhicli  depend  upon  this  rule  of  the 
common  law  for  their  solution.^ 

She  is  entitled  to  the  whole  of  her  husband's  estate  if  he  die 
without  leaving  either  descendants  or  other  kin,  in  Alabama,*  Ar- 
kansas,"^ Florida,*^  Louisiana,"  Maine,^  Massachusetts,^  if  husband 
Mississippi,ioNebraska,ii  North  Carolina,'^  Tennessee,i3  f^^jjjj"^';;^ 
Vermont,^*  and  Virginia^^;  also  if  he  die  leaving  no  if^jt^out  de- 
descendants,  nor   father,  mother,    brother   or   sister,  scendants  or 

.  .       ^,.    ,  .     collateral  heirs 

nor  any  descendants  of  brother  or   sister,  in  Michi-  ofsecoudde- 

gan^*^  and  Missouri^';  and  also  where  he  dies  with-  ^^^^' 

out  leaving  lineal  descendants,  in  Georgia,^^  Kansas,^^  eaLdescend-"' 

West  Virginia,20  and  Wisconsin.'^i     She  is  entitled  to  ^''^' 

the  whole,  or  part  of  the  estate,  according  to  the  ex-  Together  with 

istence  of  descendants  or  other  heirs,  in  California,^^ 

Colorado,23  Connecticut,^*   Delaware,^^  Georgia,^^   Illinois,^^   Indi- 

see  Clark  v.  Clark,  17  Nev 


1  Wms.  1 
124. 

■■2  Wms.  2,  citing  the  authorities  pro 
and  coti. 

^  See  however,  where  the  question  did 
arise,  Clark  v.  Clark,  17  Nev.  124. 

*  Code,  1886,  §  1915,  TT  5. 

5  Dig.  1884,  §  2-528. 

0  McCleil.  Dig.  1881,  p.  469,  §  3. 

"  Code,  1870,  art.  914. 

»  Rev.  St.  1883,  p.  610,  §  1. 

9  Smith,  Prob.  L.  188. 

10  Rev.  Code,  1880,  §  1271. 

11  Comp.  St.  1881,  ch.  23,  §§  30,  176. 

12  Code,  1883,  §  1281,  rule  8. 
IS  St.  1884,  §  3272. 

»  Rev.  L.  1880,  §  2230,  IT  2. 

15  Code,  1887,  §  2548. 

16  Howell's  St.  1882,  §  5772  a 
"  Rev.  St.  1879,  §  2161. 

18  Code,  1882,  §  2484. 

i«  Dass.  Comp.  L.  1886,  §  2258. 

20  Kelley's  Rev.  St.  1879,  ch.  66,  §  1. 

21  Rev.  St.  1878,  §  2270.  pi.  2. 

•-'•^  Civ.  Code,  §  1386.  If  one  child,  or 
the  descendants  of  one,  one  half  to  the 
widow;  if  more  than  one,  one  third;    if 


no  issue,  one  half;  and  if  neither  issue, 
nor  father,  mother,  brothers  or  sisters  or 
their  issue,  all. 

^  If  the  husband  left  surviving  children 
or  their  descendants,  one  half;  if  none, 
all :  Gen.  St.  1883,  §  10.39. 

-*  If  husband  left  descendants,  a  life 
estate  in  one  third  of  the  realty,  and  one 
third  of  the  personalty  forever;  if  none, 
then  a  life  estate  in  one  third  of  the  realty, 
and  one  half  of  the  personalty  forever : 
Gen.  St.  1875,  p.  372,  §§  6,  8  ;  but  see  St. 
1888,  §  630. 

25  Laws,  Rev.  1874,  p.  548,  §  32 :  If 
there  be  children  surviving,  one  third  of 
the  personalty  and  life  estate  in  one  third 
of  the  real  estate  ;  if  none,  but  other  kin- 
dred of  the  husband,  one  half  of  the  per- 
sonalty and  a  life  estate  in  one  half  of  the 
realty;  and  if  no  kindred,  all  the  person- 
alty, and  a  life  estate  in  all  the  realty. 

■■^  If  she  renounces  dower,  she  is  en- 
titled, if  there  be  descendants  to  a  child's 
share  of  the  estate,  if  there  be  no  more 
than  five  shares;  if  more,  to  one  fifth  of 
the  estate  :  Code,  §  2484. 

-'   Rev.  St.  1885,  p.  879,  par.  1.     If  no 


136 


PROPERTY   OF   INTESTATES. 


§67 


ana,i  lowa,^  Kansas,^  Kentucky,^  Maine,^  Maryland,^  Michigan,^ 
Mississippi,^  Nebraska,^  Nevada,^''  New  Hampshire,^^  Ohio,^^  Q^e- 
13  Pennsylvania,^'*  Rhode  Island,^^  South  Carolina,^^  Texas,^' 


tron. 


children  or  descendants,  she  is  entitled 
to  one  lialf  of  the  real  and  all  personal 
estate ;  if  there  be  a  child  or  descend- 
ants, to  one  third  of  the  personalty ; 
but  if  there  be  no  kindred,  to  the  whole 
estate. 

1  Rev.  St.  1881,  §§  2483  et  seq.  In 
this  State  the  widow  takes  absolutely,  as 
against  creditors,  one  third  of  the  real 
estate,  if  of  less  value  than  ."^lO.OOO;  one 
fourth  if  it  exceeds  that  amount,  and 
one  fifth  if  it  exceeds  .520,000.  As  against 
other  heirs  she  takes  one  half  of  the  real 
estate  if  there  be  one  child  only  ;  and  a 
life  estate  in  one  third  if  there  be  children 
by  a  former  marriage.  Of  the  personal 
property  she  takes  an  equal  share  with 
each  child  if  there  be  not  more  than 
two;  and  one  third  if  tliere  be  more; 
and  if  there  be  no  descendant,  nor  father 
or  mother,  all.  See  Matthews  w.  Pate,  93 
Ind.  443. 

2  Miller's  Code,  1886,  §  2455  et  seq. 
If  there  be  no  issue,  one  half ;  if  there 
be  no  issue,  nor  parent  or  descendant 
from  parent,  all. 

3  Dass.  Comp.  L.  §  2246.  One  half  of 
all  real  estate  held  during  coverture,  not 
conveyed  by  wife  nor  sold  under  execu- 
tion, subject  to  debts ;  if  he  left  no  issue, 
she  takes  the  whole  estate :  §  2121. 

4  Gen.  St.  1887,  ch.  31,  §  11.  One 
third  of  the  personal  estate  if  there  be 
issue  ;  one  half  if  there  be  none. 

5  Rev.  St.  1888,  p.  611,  §  9.  One  third 
of  the  personal  estate  if  there  be  issue ; 
one  half,  if  no  issue  but  other  kin;  all, 
if  there  be  no  kin. 

6  Hinck.  Test.  L.  §  1176.  If  no  de- 
scendant, parent,  brother  or  sister  or 
descendant  of  a  brother  or  sister,  the 
whole  of  the  personal  estate;  if  a  child 
or  descendant,  one  third ;  if  no  descend- 
ant, but  a  parent,  brother  or  sister  or 
descendant  of  such,  one  half. 

7  Howell's  St.  §  5772  a,  p.  1503.  If  no 
issue,  the  whole  of  the  property  for  life; 
and  if  no  hneal  descendant,  nor  parent, 
brother  or  sister  or  descendant,  abso- 
lutely. 

8  Rev.  Code,  1880,  §  1271.  A  child's 
part  if  there  are  descendants ;  if  none,  all. 


9  Comp.  St.  1887,  ch.  23,  §  .30.  If  no 
issue,  the  real  estate  to  the  widow  for 
her  life,  and  a  child's  share  of  the  per- 
sonalty :  p.  233,  §  176. 

10  Comp.  L.  1873,  §  794,  One  half,  if 
no  issue,  or  one  child  or  descendant  of 
one ;  if  more  than  one  child,  one  third. 
If  no  issue,  nor  parent,  brother  or  sister 
or  descendants,  all.  In  Clark  v.  Clark, 
17  Nev.  124,  it  is  held  that  in  case  of  an 
intestate's  death,  leaving  a  widow  and 
brothers  and  sisters  bat  no  father  or 
mother,  the  common  law  rule  giving  one 
half  to  the  widow  and  one  half  to  the 
brothers  and  sisters  is  in  force,  tlie  statute 
making  no  provision  for  such  case. 

11  Gen.  L.  1878,  p.  475,  §§7, 8.  One  third 
if  there  be  issue  ;  one  half  if  there  be 
none.  But  this  includes  her  dower  and 
homestead  estate  ;  if  these  together  equal 
or  exceed  the  one  half  of  the  estate,  she 
takes  nothing  by  descent ;  if  they  are 
less,  then  she  takes  as  much  as  will 
make,  together  with  them,  one  half: 
Burt  V.  Randlett,  59  N.  H.   1.30. 

12  Rev.  St.  1880,  §  4158.  Widow  takes 
a  life  estate  in  real  property  descended 
or  derived  from  an  ancestor  if  there  be 
no  children  nor  descendants ;  and  the 
whole  of  all  other  estate. 

13  Code,  1887,  §  3098.  If  no  issue, 
wife  takes  the  whole  of  the  estate ;  if 
there  be  issue,  she  takes  one  half  of  the 
personalty. 

1*  Bright.  Purd.  Dig.  1883,  p.  929,  §  2, 
If  there  be  issue,  one  third  of  the  real 
estate  for  life  and  one  third  of  the  per- 
sonal estate  absolutely  ;  if  no  issue,  but 
other  heirs,  one  half  of  the  real  and  per- 
sonal estate. 

15  Pub.  St.  1882,  p.  489,  §  9.  If  no 
issue,  one  half  of  the  personal  estate;  if 
there  be  issue,  one  third. 

ic  Rev.  St.  1882,  §  1845.  If  issue,  one 
third  of  real  and  personal  property  ;  if 
none,  but  parent,  brother  or  sister  or  de- 
scendant, or  lineal  ancestor,  one  half ;  if 
none  of  these,  but  other  kin,  two  thirds ; 
if  no  kin,  the  whole  estate. 

17  Kev.  St.  1888,  §  1646.  If  there  be 
descendants,  one  third  of  the  personal 
estate,  and   life  estate   in   one   third  q-, 


§  68  THE    FATHER    AS    HEIR.  137 

Vermont,^  Yirglnia,^  West  Virginia,^  and  Wisconsin.'*  In  some 
States  these  provisions  include,  or  take  the  place  of,  dower. 

§  68.  The  Father  as  Heir.  —  The  degree  of  propinquity  between 
parent  and  child  is  obviously  the  same  whcthor  considered  in  the 
descending  or  ascending  direction.  But  the  principle  determin- 
ing the  devolution  of  ])ropcrty  does  not,  in  this  first  degree  at 
least,  rest  upon  the  ties  of  consanguinity  so  much  as  upon  the 
recognition  of  the  natural  dependence  of  the.  child  ujjon  the 
parent.  So  long  as  the  children  are  minors,  this  dependence  is 
obvious ;  and  to  ignore  their  claim  to  share  in  the  distribution  of 
the  deceased  father's  estate  would  be  clearly  irrational.  And  the 
relation  between  parent  and  child,  even  after  the  period  of  mi- 
nority, is  usually  such  as  to  plainly  indicate  the  wisdom  of  the 
rule  wliich  upon  the  death  of  the  parents  secures  to  the  children 
that  estate  which  they  may  have  assisted  in  acquiring  or  in- 
creasing, and  with  which  they  have  become  familiar. 

These  considerations  are  not  so  decisive  in  the  case  of  the 
death  of  a  child.  In  the  usual  course  of  nature  the  parent  nei- 
tlier  expects  nor  depends  upon  an  accession  to  his  means  from 
such  an  event.  And  although  the  bonds  and  relations  which 
unite  the  several  members  of  the  family  are  such  as  to  demand 
the  devolution  of  the  property,  which  any  of  them  may  leave  at 
his  death  to  the  others,  there  is  but  a  faint  preponderance  in 
favor  of  any  of  the  individuals.  If  the  brothers  and  sisters  are 
still  in  their  infancy,  the  rational  course  of  devolution  would 
seem  to  point  to  the  father  as  the  natural  head  and  usually 
the  supporter  of  the  family ;  ^  or  in  case  of  his  prior  decease,  to 
the  mother  ;  and  only  in  case  of  the  prior  decease  of  both,  to  the 
brothers  and  sisters.  But  even  these  considerations  lose  signifi- 
cance as  the  members  of  the  family  grow  older  and  become  inde- 
pendent, gradually  loosening  the  bonds  which  connect  them  with 

realty  ;  if  none,  then  all  the  personal  es-  been   no  issne  by  the  surviving  widow, 

tate  and  one  half  of  the  realty  ;  and  if  she  is   entitled   to  all  that  came  to  the 

there  be  neither  descendants,  nor  parent,  intestate  by  the  marriage  with  her ;    if 

brother  or  sister  or  descendant,  then  the  there  is  issne  surviving,  whether  by  her 

whole  estate.  or  by  a  former  marriage,  one  third   of 

1  Rev.  L.  18S0,  §  2230.   If  no  issue,  and  the  personal  estate ;  if  none,  one  half, 
the  widow  does  not  elect  to  take  dower,  '^  Same  as  in  Virginia, 

she  will  be  entitled  to  the  whole  estate  *  Rev.  St.  1878,  §  3935,  pi.  6.    A  child's 

not  exceeding  §2,000,  and  to  one  half  in  share. 

excess  thereof.     But  if  there  be  no  kin-  ^  As  to  the  descent  of  the  property  of 

dred,  she  is  entitled  to  the  whole  estate.  minors  dying  without  issue  and  unmar- 

-  Code,   1887,   §  2557.     If   there  has  ried,  see  i»fra,  §  70. 


l;j8  PROPERTY    OF   INTESTATES.  §  68 

the  original  stock  as  they  found  new  families  themselves.  Hence, 
while  there  is  perfect  unanimity  in  according  the  first  claim  to 
the  inheritance  to  children,  legislators  differ  as  to  who  is  to  be 
preferred  if  there  are  no  descendants.  At  common  law,  the 
father,  as  well  as  every  lineal  ascendant,  was  cut  off  from  the 
inheritance  in  lands. 

The  course  above  indicated,  that  is  to  say,  directing  the  inher- 
itance of  an  intestate,  in  default  of  any  child  or  descendant,  to 
go  to  the  father,  and  if  none,  to  the  mother,  and  if 
fafher^inherits    no  mother,  then  to  the  brothers  and  sisters  in  equal 
if  no  children,    gj^g^gg^  ^^^^  ^q  ^\^q  descendants  of  deceased  brothers 

or  sisters,  if  any,  such  shares  collectively  as  their  deceased  parent 
would  have  been  entitled  to  if  alive  at  the  time  of  the  intestate's 
death,  is  adopted  in  Arkansas,^  Colorado,^  New  York,^  and  South 
Carolina.*  In  many  of  the  States  the  father  is  preferred,  if  there 
be  no  lineal  descendants,  but  with  different  provisions  as  to  the 
mother  and  sisters  and  brothers.  He  takes  in  default  of  descend- 
ants (subject  in  some  instances  to  the  right  of  the  husband  or 
wife),  but  in  preference  to  mother,  brothers,  and  sisters,  in  Cali- 
fornia,^  Florida,^  Maine,'  Maryland,^  Massachusetts,^  Michigan,io 
Minnesota,"  Nebraska,!^  Nevada,!^  New  Hampshire,^*  Oregon,!^ 
Rhode  Island, 16  Tennessee,^'  Vermont,!^  Virginia,!^  and  West  Vir- 
With  mother,  ginia.^o  He  takes  equally  with  the  mother,  and  if  she 
if  riving.  -^^  ^^^^  j-^gj,  share  also,  in  preference  to  brothers  and 

sisters,  in  the  States  of  Iowa,2i  Kansas,^^  Kentucky ,^3  Pennsylva- 

J  DicT.  1884,  §  2529.  ^'  An  equal  share  with  husband  or  wife, 

2  Gen.  St.  1883,  §  1039.  if  any  ;  ail,  if  none  :  Comp.  L.  1873,  §  794. 

3  3  Banks  &  Bro.  (7th  ed.),  p.  2210,  §  1.  i*  Subject  to  widow's  claim  to  one  half 
*  Subject  to  the  widow's  share :  Rev.  of  the  personalty  :  Gen.  L.  1878,  p.  476. 

St.  1882,  §  1845.  ^^  Postponed  to  the  wife :  Code,  1887, 

s  Equally  with  husband  or  wife  :  Code,  §  3098. 

§  1386.  1''  Pub.  St.  1882,  §  2420.     Postponed  to 

6  McCIel.  Dig.  1881,  p.  468,  §  1.  the  widow  as  to  personalty;  and  realty 

7  Rev.  St.  1883,  p.  610,  §  1.  equally  with  motlier. 

8  As   to  the   personal  estate:   Hinck.  ^'^  Code,  1884,  §  3268. 

Test.  L.  §  1182.     As  to  the  real  estate,  ^^  Subject  to  claina  of  husband  or  wife  : 

the  father  is  postponed   to  brother  and  Rev.  L.  1880,  §  2230. 

sisters :  lb.  §  1255.  ^^  Code,  1887,  §§  2548,  2557,  subject  to 

9  Smith's  Prob.  L.,  p.  187.  husband   or   widow's   right  in   the   per- 
1''  Subject  to  life  estate  of  widow   in  sonalty. 

realty  :  Howell's  St.  1882,  §5772  a,  p.  1503.         20  Postponed   to   husband   or   widow's 

11  Subject  to  the  claim  of  husband  or     claim. 

wife  to  one  third  of  the  real  estate  :  St.  21  Miller's  Code,  §  2455. 

1878,  p.  565,  §  3.  22  d^ss.  Comp.  L.  §  2258. 

12  Subject  to  life  estate  of  the  widow  in  23  Qen.  St.  ch.  31,  §  1. 
the  realty  :  Comp.  St.  1887,  ch.  23,  §  30. 


§  69  THE    MOTIIEll    AS    HEIRESS.  139 

nia,^  Texas,^  and  Wisconsin/'^  Father,  mother,  broth-  Father,  motiier, 
ers,  and  sisters  take  equally  in  Georgia,*  Illinois,^  In-  Sers^m  eqllai 
diana,^  Louisiana,"  and  Missouri.^  The  father  is  p*""'*- 
postponed  to  brothers  and  sisters,  but  preferred  to  the  mother, 
in  Alabama,^  Delaware,^''  Mississippi,^^  New  Jersey,^  North  Caro- 
lina,*'^ and  Ohio.*^  In  Connecticut  brothers  and  sisters  take  before 
parents. 

§  69.  The  Mother  as  Heiress.  —  The  mother,  as  will  Mother  takes 
appear  from  the  preceding  section  discussing  the  fat"fer'^  ^'"^^ 
order  in  which  the  father  is  entitled  to  inherit  from  „ 

,  .,  ,     .  »  Postponed  to 

lus  child,  IS  nowhere  preferred  to  the  father,  but  in  father,  but  pre- 

some  States  takes  jointly  with  him.^^     In  the  other  eis  and  sistera, 

States,    she   is   postponed   to   the   father,  taking  in  "hem"^''"^^ 

preference  to  brothers  and  sisters  and  their  descend-  postponed  to 

ants,^^   or  takes   equal   shares  with    them;i^  and   in  brothers  and 

sisters. 

some  States  she  is  postponed  to  them  also.^^     In  Mis- 
souri, father,  mother,  brothers  and  sisters,  and  their  br'othcrV'^an.T' 
descendants,  take  equally.  sisters,eq«aiiy. 

The  course  of  descent,  where  the  intestate  leaves  neither  issue 
nor  parents,  is  in  some  States  indicated  by  directing  the  estate  to 
pass  as  if  the  parents  had  survived  the  intestate  and  ^ 

.  „  Descent  to 

died  m  possession  of  the  portion  coming  to  them,  one  heirs  of 
half  going  to  the  heirs  of  each.     In  such  case  the  p^*"^"  "" 
heirs,  however,  inherit   not   from   such   father   or   mother,   but 
directly  from  the  intestate.^^     And  where  the  estate  is  directed  to 

1  Bright.  Purd.  Dig.  188.3,  p.  931.  §  22.         "  Rev.  Code,  1880,  §  1271. 
Subject  to  husband  or  widow's  right,  the         i-  Rev.  1877,  p.  297,  §  1. 
personalty  absolutely,  real  estate  for  life         '^  Code,  §  1281,  Rule  6. 

of  both  and  to  survivor.  "  Rev.  St.  1880,  §  4159. 

2  Rev.  St.  §  1G15.  If  both  are  living;  i^  j^  Connecticut,  Iowa,  Kansas,  Ken- 
but  if  mother  is  dead,  then  one  half  to  the  tucky,  Louisiana,  Pennsylvania,  Tennes- 
fatlier,  the  other  half  to  brothers  and  sis-  see,  Texaa,  and  Wisconsin.  See  supra, 
ters  ;  if  there  are  none,  all  to  the  fatlier.  §  G8. 

3  Rev.  St.  §  2270.  lo  In  Arkansas,  Colorado,  Florida,  and 

*  Code,  1882,  §  2484.  New  York. 

5  St.  &  Curt.  St.  1885,  p.  870,  par.  1.  i"  In  California,  Connecticut,  Georgia, 
If  the  mother  be  dead,  the  father  takes  Illinois,  Indiana,  Louisiana,  Maine,  Alary- 
her  share  also.  land,    JIassachusetts,    :Micliigan,   Minne- 

6  Rev.  St.  §  24G9.     Same  as  in  Illinois,     sota  (one  third),  Nebraska,  Nevada,  New 
"  Code,  1870,  art.  90-S.    One  half  jointly     Hampshire,  Oregon,  Rhode  Island,  South 

with   mother,  or   one  half  if  mother  be     Carolina,  Vermont,  Virginia,  and  ^Ycst 
dead.  Virginia. 

*  Rev.  St.  §  21G1.  18  In  Alabama,  Delaware,  Mississippi, 
5  Code,  §  191.5.                                               Now  Jersey,  North  Carolina,  and  Ohio. 

1"  Rev.  1874,  p.  548,  §  32.  is  Hence  the  property   descending  is 


140  PROPERTY   OF   INTESTATES.  §  69 

go  in  moieties,  one  to  the  next  of  kin  of  the  father,  and  tlie  otlier 
to  the  next  of  kin  of  the  mother,  each  moiety  will  pass,  as  if  it 
were  an  independent  estate,  to  the  next  of  kin  in  its  respective 
line,  without  regard  to  their  relative  nearness  to  the  intestate.^ 

Provision  is  made  in  several  States  for  the  legal  adoption  of 
children  by  others  than  their  parents,  whereby  they  become 
Children  by  members  of  the  family  of  the  person  or  persons  so 
adoption  in-      adopting,  and  bv  force  of  the  statute  entitled  to  all 

hent  like  iiat-  r        &'  ./ 

urai  ciiiidnn      the  rights  accordcd  by  the  law  to  natural  children,  in- 

parents,  cludiug  the  right  of  inheritance.     So  far  as  their  own 

footing  in  this  respect  is  concerned,  it  is  precisely  equal  to  that 

of  other  lawful  children  ;2  and  hence  they  take  no  share  of  an 

estate  willed  to  others,  if  they  are  intentionally  omit- 
but  not  by  rep-  i  j  .    ,  r 

resentation        tcd  in  the  wiU.^     It  lias  been  held  that  the  right  of 
"^         '    inheritance  does  not  extend  to  inheritance,  by  repre- 
sentation  through    the    adopting   father,  from    another  person.* 
,  ^   .,  But  the  right  to  inherit  from  an  adopted  child  is  not 

Inheritance  _     "  "^  ^ 

from  adopted     alwavs  given  to  the  persons  adopting.     In  Missouri  it 

children.  •     ■,     \  ^     ^  -,       i     •  e     t  -,  ii-ii  -j  i 

IS  held  that  the  heirs  oi  the  adopted  child  are  its  rela- 
tions by  blood,  and  not  those  by  adoption,  although  the  estate 
descending  had  been  derived  from  the  adopting  parent.^  In  In- 
diana the  syllabus  of  a  case  announced  the  same  principle,  as 
decided  by  the  Supreme  Court  of  that  State  ;^  but  the  court,  in 
later  cases,  point  out  that  they  had  never  so  decided,  and  estab- 
lish the  principle,  that  the  adopting  parents  take  in  preference  to 

not  controlled  or  affectcrl  by  ownership  in  the  husband  merely,  it  does  not  by  reason 

the  deceased  parents ;  it  passes  to  their  thereof  become    the    heir   of  the   wife : 

/e^oHieirs,  not  to  their  devisees  or  legatees:  Sharkey  v.  McDermott,  16  Mo.  App.  80; 

Lash  I'.  Lash,  57  Iowa,  88,  90.     This  de-  s.  c.  9i"Mo.  647. 

cision  seems  inconsistent  with  the  case  of         ^  Bowdlear   v.   Bowdlear,    112   Mass. 

Moore  v.  Weaver,  53  Iowa,  11,  where  the  184 ;  Sharkey  v.  McDermott,  16  Mo.  App. 

widow  of  a  deceased  father  of  the  intes-  80,  87. 

tate  was  allowed  to  take  the  share  to  *  Quigley  v.  Mitchell,  41  Oh.  St.  375; 
wliich  slie  would  have  been  entitled  if  Estate  of  Sunderland,  60  Iowa,  732  (two  of 
her  husband  had  survived  the  intestate,  the  judges  in  this  case  dissenting,  holding 
See  also  Leonard  v.  Lining,  57  Iowa,  648,  that  there  was  no  distinction  in  this  re- 
in consonance  with  Lash  v.  Lash.  spect) ;  Keegan  v.  Geraghty,  101  111.  26; 

1  McKinney  v.  Abbott,  49  Tex.  371,  Barnhizel  v.  Ferrell,  47  Ind.  335.  Schou- 
375 ;  Jones  v.  Barnett,  30  Tex.  637,  642.  ler,  in  his  work  on  Domestic  Relations, 

2  Vidal  V.  Commagere,  13  La.  An.  516;  says,  "  An  adopted  child  usually  inherits 
Burrage  r.  Briggs,  120  Mass.  103;  New-  from  the  adopting  parent,  and  r?Ve  ?'e?-sa; 
man's  Estate,  16  Pac.  R.  887;  Johnson's  but  otherwise  as  to  collateral  kindred": 
Appeal,  88  Pa.  St.  846,  353 ;   Lunay   v.  §  2-32,  note  5. 

Vantyne,  40  Vt.  501 ;  Wagner  v.  Varner,  ^  Reinders  r.  Koppelmann,  68  Mo  482, 

50  Iowa,  532;  Hosser's  Succession,  37  La.     494. 

An.  839.     But  where  a  child  is  adopted  by  ^  Krug  v.  Davis,  87  Ind.  590. 


§  70  BROTHEUS    AND   SISTEKS    AS    HEIRS.  141 

the  natural  parents.^  JJut  where  the  adopted  chihl,  dying  before 
the  adopting  parents,  leaves  issue,  such  issue  take  as  if  they 
were  grandchild ren,^  as  was  the  rule  under  the  Roman  law.-'^ 
This  seems  to  be  the  more  consistent  and  reasonable  doctrine ; 
and  it  was  intimated,  though  not  decided,  that  the  rule  includes 
property  which  came  to  the  adopted  child  from  any  source  other 
than  by  inheritance  from  kinsmen  of  its  own  blood.'^ 

The  right  of  an  ado{)ted  child  given  by  the  statute  Right  of  inher- 
of  one  State  follows  it  and  is  valid  in  all  other  States.^  sta'tut/fuHows 
But  while  the  right  to  inherit  is  undoubtedly  secured  f,f S olher''^ 
by  tlie  statute  to  the  full  extent  of  that  of  natural  ^'^'es. 
children,  yet  the  identity  of  the  child  is  not  thereby  identity  of 
changed;  licnce  a  devise  to  one  for  life,  "with  re-  chanfjed  by  the 
mainder  to  her  children,"  does  not  include  an  adopted  *'^*^p''°"- 
child   of    such   life  tenant;*'  and    so   the   exemption   from   the 
inheritance  tax  secured  to  children  does  not  extend  to  adopted 
children.' 

§  70.  Brothers  and  Sisters  :  Heirs  of  the  Full  and  of  the  Half 
Blood.  —  The  next  degree  in  the  order  of  succession  is  that  of 
brothers  and  sisters  and  their  descendants.  These  are  not  in  the 
descending  or  ascending  line  of  propinquity,  but  are  collateral  to 
the  intestate.  Since  the  brothers  and  sisters  themselves  are  mem- 
bers of  the  immediate  family  to  which  the  intestate  belonged,  they 
are  (wdicre  the  intestate  left  no  children,  and  after  the  husband 
and  wife)  more  nearly  interested  in  the  intestate's  property  than 
any  other  relatives  except  the  father  and  mother,  aside  from  the 
question  of  consanguinity.  Hence  the  law  casts  upon  them  the 
descent  of  such  property,  if  there  are  no  children,  subject  to 
the  rights  of  husband  or  wife,  if  any,  and  generally  in  connection 
with,  father  or  mother,  or  both.  If  any  of  them  died  before  the 
intestate,  leaving  descendants,  these  represent  their  deceased  par- 
ents, and  take,  in  all  cases,  the  share  of  such  parent  collectively, 

1  Davis  V.  Krug,  95  Ind.  1;  Paul  v.  ^  Estate  of  Sunderland,  60  Iowa,  732 ; 
Davis,  100  Ind.  422.  Eoss  r.  Koss,  129  Mass.  248. 

2  Power  I'.  Hafley,  4  S.  W.  R.  (Ky.)  «  Scliafer  v.  Eneu,  54  Pa.  St.  304,  306; 
683.  a  similar  decision    was   made  under  the 

'■^  Per  Merrick,  C.  J.,  in  Vidal  v.  Com-  Massachusetts     statute,     where    the   re- 

mag^re,  13  La.  An.  516,  517.  mainder    was   limited   to   the    "heirs   at 

4  Humphries   v.   Davis,   100  Ind.  274.  law  " :  Wyeth  v.  Stone,  144  ]\Iass.  441. 

But  property  inherited  from  the  natural  '  Commonwealth  v.  Nancrede,  32  Pa. 

parents  descends  to  them  or  their  kindred  :  St.  389. 
Hole  V.  Robbins,  53  Wis.  514. 


142 


PROPERTY   OF   INTESTATES. 


§70 


that  is,  all  the  children  of  a  deceased  brother  or  sister  take  to- 
gether the  share  which  the  deceased  brother  or  sister  would  have 
taken  if  he  had  survived  the  intestate.  And  in  many  States  the 
principle  is  extended  further :  if  any  of  the  children  of  a  deceased 
brother  or  sister  died  before  the  intestate,  his  children  take  col- 
lectively the  share  which  he  would  have  taken  if  he  had  survived  ; 
and  so  on  in  every  generation  of  descendants  fi'oni  a  deceased 
brother  or  sister. 

Where  broth-  Brothers  and  sisters,  and  their  descendants  by  rep- 
ers  and  sisters    rescntation  as  abovc  stated,  take,  in  default  of  chil- 

take  in  default  i,-  t  •    ^ 

of  children.  drcu,  aud  subjcct  to  the  rights  oi  husband  or  wite, 
bandorwife'l  to  the  cxclusion  of  parents  and  more  remote  kindred, 
rights.  ^^   Alabama,^    Connecticut,''^    Delaware,'^   Mississippi,^ 

New  Jersey,^  North  Carolina,^  Ohio,"  and  Pennsylvania  ^ ;  to- 
gether with  parents  and  excluding  more  remote  kin 
in  Georgia,^  Illinois,^*'  Indiana,^^  Louisiana,^^  and 
Missouri  ^3.  postponed  to  the  father,  and  together  with 
the  mother,  excluding  remoter  kin,  in  Florida,^*  Ken- 
tucky ,i^  Maine,!^  ]\Iaryland,^'  Massachusetts,^^  Michi- 
gan,^^  Minnesota,^^  Nebraska,^!  Nevada,^^  New  Hampshire,^^  Ore- 
gon,'"^*   Rhode   Island,^^   South   Carolina,^^  Vermont,^''  Virginia,^^ 


Together  with 
parents. 

Postponed  to 
father,  to- 
gether with 
mother. 


1  Code,  §  1915. 

2  Gen.  St.  1888,  §  632.  But  only 
those  of  the  whole  blood  ;  those  of  the 
lialf  blood  are  postponed  to  the  parents. 

3  Laws,  548,  §  32. 

4  Rev.  Code,  §  1271. 

s  Rev.  297,  §  1.  Brothers  and  sisters 
of  the  whole  blood  only  ;  those  of  the  half 
blood  are  postponed  to  parents,  the  mother, 
if  no  father,  taking  life  estate. 

6  Code,  §  1281,  rule  6. 

7  Rev.  St.  §4159. 

8  Bright.  Purd.  Dig.  p.  931,  §  22,  as  to 
real  estate,  and  brothers  and  sisters  of  the 
whole  blood  ;  those  of  the  half  blood  are 
postponed  to  the  parents  :  §  23. 

9  Code,  §  2484.  If  she  be  unmarried ; 
otherwise  she  can  inherit  nothing  except 
from  her  only  or  last  surviving  child. 

w  St.  &  Curt.  St.  1885,  p.  879,  par.  1. 

11  Half  to  parents,  the  other  half  to 
brothers  and  sisters  and  their  descend- 
ants ;  if  no  parents,  all :  Rev.  St.  §  2469. 

1-  One  half  to  parents,  the  other  half 
to  brothers  and  sisters  or  their  descend- 
ants :  Code,  1870,  art.  903. 


13  Rev.  St.  §  2161. 

14  Dig.  408,  §  1. 

1^  One  moiety  if  father  or  mother  be 
dead  ;  all,  if  botli  be  dead     Gen.  St.  480, 

§1- 

16  Rev.  St.  1888,  p.  610,  §  1. 
1"  Hinck.  Pr.  L.  §  1185. 

18  Smith,  Pr.  L.  187,  pi  3 

19  Howell's  St.  §  5772  a,  p.  1503. 

"'^  One  third  to  the  mother,  residue 
to  brothers  and  sisters  ;  but  the  mother 
takes  in  exclusion  of  the  descendants 
of  brothers  and  sisters :  St.  1878,  p.  565, 
§3. 

21  Comp.  St.  ch  23,  §  30. 

22  Comp.  L.  §  794. 

23  Gen.  L.  476,  §  1. 

24  Code,  1887,  §  3098. 

25  Pub.  St.  489,  §  2. 

20  Rev.  St.  §  1845.  Mother,  and  broth- 
ers and  sisters  of  the  whole  blood,  take 
together  one  moiety ,  but  brothers  and 
sisters  of  the  half  blood  are  postponed  to 
the  mother. 

2"  Rev.  L.  §  2230. 
28  Code,  1887,  §  2548. 


§  70         HEIRS   OF   THE   FULL   AND    OF    THE    HALF    BLOOD.  143 

and  West  Virginia.^     Brothers  and  sisters  and  their  descendants 
are  postponed  to  botli  i)arents,  but  take  to  the  cxclu-  Postponed  to 
sion  of  remoter  kin  in  Arkansas,2  Colorado,^  luwa,^  both  parents. 
Kansas,^   New    York,*^    Pennsylvania,"    Tennessee,^   Texas,^   and 
Wisconsin.^*^ 

Brothers  and  sisters  having  the  same  father  and  mother  are 
related  to  each  other  by  the  whole  blood ;  if  they  have  the  same 
father  but  a  different  mother,  or  the  same  mother  but  a  different 
father,  they  are  related  to  each  other  by  the  half  blood.  This 
difference  in  the  consanguinity  of  collateral  kindred  lias  given  rise 
to  some  divergence  in  the  laws  of  different  countries  regulating 
the  devolution  of  property.  Under  the  artificial  system  of  the 
common  law,  collateral  kindred  of  the  half  blood  were  entirely 
excluded  from  the  inheritance  of  land,^^  while  in  the  distribution 
of  the  personalty  no  distinction  is  recognized  between  brothers 
and  sisters  of  the  whole  blood  and  those  of  the  half  blood ;  "  for 
they  [the  half  blood]  are  of  the  kindred  of  the  intestate,  and  only 
excluded  from  inheritances  of  land  upon  feudal  principles."  ^^ 

In  the  American  States  there  is  but  little  difference  between 
the  rules  of  descent  of  real,  and  of  the  distribution  of  personal 
property,  save  as  to  the  rights  of  surviving  husband  Distinction  be- 
or  widow  ;i^  but  there  is  a  noticeable  divergence  the  whole  and 
among  the  several  States  as  to  the  rules  affecting  the  ^jj^jj^  ^'^'^ 

1  Kelley's  Rev.  St.  1879,  ch.  66,  §  1.  justice,  nor  always  a  hardship ;  since  even 

2  Dig.  §  2162.  the  succession  of  tlie  whole   hlood   was 

3  Gen.  St.  188.3,  §  10.39.  originally  a  beneficial  indulgence."     His 
*  Miller's  Code,  §2157.   If  both  parents  candor,  however,  induces  him  to  admit 

are  dead,  their  share  goes  to  their  heirs.  that  this  element  of  the  common  law  is 

"  Dass.  Comp.  L.  1885,  ch.  38,  §  21.  not  his  ideal  of  the  perfection  of  human 

If  both  parents  are  dead,  then  as  if  either  reason.     "I  must   be   impartial   enough 

had  survived,  to  their  heirs ;  and  so  on  to  own,  that,  in  some  instances,  the  prac- 

through   ascending    ancestors    and   their  tice  is  carried  further  than  the  principle 

heirs.  upon  which  it  goes  will  warrant."     (lb., 

6  S  Banks  &  Bro.  (7th  ed.),  p.  2210,  §  1.  231.) 

'  Bright.  Purd.  Dig.  1883,  p.  931,  §  22.  ^-^  2  Bla.  Coinm.  505;  Crooke  i-.  Watt. 

But  only  those  of  the  half  blood.  Show.  P.  C.  108,  cited  in  Wms.    [1511] ; 

8  St.  1884,  §  3269.  s.  c.  2  Vern.  124.     But  it  must  be  reniem- 

9  Rev.  St.  §  1(545.  bered  that  this  an<l  subsequent  decisions 

10  Rev.  St.  §  2270,  pi.  3.  on  this  point  were  made  upon  the  Statute 

11  Blackstone  makes  a  gallant  attempt     of  Descents. 

to  justify  this  feature  of  the  English  law         18  Jn  Pennsylvania  there  is  a  difference 

of  descent,  or  at  least  to  palliate  its  harsh-  in  the  rights  of  brothers  and  sisters  of  the 

ness.     "  It  is  certainly  a  very  fine-spim  whole  blood  and  of  the  half  blood  to  the 

and  subtle  nicety,"  he  says,   (2  Comm.  real  estate,  b\it  not  to  the  personal  estate 

230,)  "  but  considering  the  principles  upon  of  an  intestate  :  Bright.  Purd.  Dig.  p.  931, 

which  our  law  is  founded,  it  is  not  an  in-  §§  20,  21. 


144  PROPERTY   OF   INTESTATES.  §  70 

inheritance  of  collateral  kindred  of  the  full  and  of  the  half  blood. 
, .  ,.     In  some  of  them  the  distinction  is  simply  ignored,  the 

Where  this  dis-  i    J     o  ' 

tinction  is  statute  declaring  collaterals  of  the  half  blood  to  be 
entitled  equally  with  those  of  the  full  blood  in  the 
same  degree,  as  in  Illinois,^  Maine,^  Massachu setts, '^  North  Caro- 
Distinction  as  liw^,*  Oregon,^  and  Vermont.^  The  statute  of  Penn- 
to  real,  but  not  svlvania  still  retains  a  vestige  of  the  English  distinc- 

as  to  persoual        ''  .  . 

property.  tlon  between  real  and  personal  property,  in  postponing 

the  half  blood  to  the  full  blood  in  respect  of  realty,  but  putting 

them  on  the  same  footing  as  to  the  personaltyJ  The 
postponed  to     half  blood  are  not  excluded  in  any  of  the  States,  but 

postponed  to  the  full  blood  in  Connecticut,^  Dela- 
ware,^ Georgia,!*^  Maryland,^!  Mississippi ,12  New  Jersey ,1^  Ohio,^* 
Whole  shares  ^nd  South  Carolina. ^^  In  other  States  the  question 
haiTshares"to  ^^  Compromised  by  giving  full  shares  to  the  heirs 
half  blood.  gf  the  whole  blood,  and  half  shares  to  those  of  the 
half  blood,   as  in  Colorado,i^  Florida,!'    Kentucky,!^   Missouri,!^ 

Texas ,20  Yirginia,^!  and  West  Virginia.     In  yet  others 

Where  prop-  n     1  •  t       j_i  •j_      •  i 

erty  descends  the  source  of  the  property  IS  made  the  criterion  by 
the  original  °  which  the  respective  rights  of  collateral  kindred  of 
•'''°"'-  the  full  and  of  the  half  blood  are  determined.     If  the 

property  constituting  the  inheritance  came  by  devise,  descent, 
or  gift  from  some  ancestor,  then  those  of  his  blood  only  are 
entitled  thereto,  excluding  all  who  are  not  of  his  blood ;  but  as  to 

1  St.  &  Curt.  St.  1885.  p.  879,  par.  1.  ^^  Rev.  St.  1882,  §  1845.     The  brothers 

2  Rev.  St.  1883,  p.  611,  §  2.  and  sisters  of  the  whole  blood  take  with 

3  Publ.  St.  1882,  743,  §  2;  Larrabee  v.  the  widow  and  father  or  mother,  and  their 
Tucker,  116  Mass.  562.  children  by  representation  ;  if  no  brothers 

*  Code,  1883,  §  1281,  rule  6.  and  sisters  of  the  full  blood,  then  those  of 

6  Gen.  L.  1887,  §  3103.  the  half  blood  take,  together  with  child 

6  Rev.  L.  1880,  §  2231 ;  Hatch  v.  Hatch,  or  children  of  deceased  brothers  or  sisters 
21  Vt.  450,  454.  of  the  full  blood  by  representation. 

7  Stark'i;.  Stark,  55  Pa.  St.  62 ;  Bright.  le  Gen.  L.  1883,  §  1041. 
Purd.  Dig.  932,  §  21.  1^  McClell.  Dig.  469,  §  4. 

8  Gen.  St.  1888,  §  632.  i^  Gen.  St.  1887,  p.  481,  §  3.     Where 

9  Laws,  1874,  548,  §  32.  any  ascendants  are  in  the  same  degree 

10  Code,  §  2484.    Brothers  and  sisters  of    with  collaterals  of  the  half  blood,  they 
the  half  blood  on  the  paternal  side  take     take  double  shares. 

equally  with  those  of  the  whole  blood ;  "  Rev.  St.  1879,  §  2164.  If  ascendants 
but  if  there  be  neitlier,  then  those  of  the  be  in  the  same  degree  and  take  with  col- 
half  blood  on  the  maternal  side  take.  laterals  of  the  half  blood,  they  take  double 

11  Rev.  Code,  1878,  405,  §  19.  shares. 

12  Rev.  Code,  1880,  §  1271.  20  Rev.  St.  1879,  §  1648. 

13  Rev.  1877,  pp.  297,  298.  ^a  Code,    1887,   §   2549.     Same   as    in 
1*  Rev.  St.  1880,  §  4159.                              Missouri. 


§  TO         HEIRS    OF   THH    FILL    AND    OF    THK    HALF    BLOOD.         145 

other  property  wliicli  cannot  l»e  traced  to  some  ancestor  not  com- 
mon to  the  full  and  to  tlie  half  blood  relations,  no  distinction  is 
allowed.  The  law  is  substantially  so  enacted,  although  variously 
worded,  in  Alabama,^  Arkansas,^  California,^  Indiana,*  lowa,-^ 
Kansas,^  Louisiana,"  Michigan,^  Minnesota,^  Nebraska,!^  Nevada," 
New  York ,12  Rhode  Island, ^^  and  Tennessee.^* 

Some  of  the  States  distinguish  between  the  estates  of  adults 
and  those  of  minors  dying  intestate  without  issue  and  not  having 
married.^5     Such  distinctions  are  based  upon  the  rec-  Distinction  in 
ognition  of  the  true  principle  constituting  the  unity  of  J«^^^;;;/J,{ 
the  family.    The  property  owned  by  a  child  before  the  ariuits  and  that 

•^  I       I         J  •/  -ii  J    of  minors. 

law  allows  him  to  dispose  of  it  at  his  own  will,  and 
before  he  has,  by  marrying,  contracted  obligations  and  relations 
outside  of  the  family,  is  essentially  the  property  of  the  family, 
and  upon  his  death  ought  to  remain  within  it,  or  revert  to  the 
source  from  which  it  came  to  the  child.  Hence  most  of  the 
States  distinguishing  between  the  majority  and  minority  of  an 
intestate  direct  the  reversion  of  the  estate  of  such  minor  to  the 
donor  or  his  heirs  ;  ^'^  and  where  such  estate  consists  of  the  minor's 
distributive  share  of  his  deceased  father's  estate,  it  will  go  to  the 
minor's  brothers  and  sisters  or  other  heirs,  just  as  if  it  had  de- 
scended to  them  from  the  father,  or  as  if  the  minor  had  died 
before  the  father.^^     In  some  States  the  distinction  is  confined  to 

1  Code,  §  1919.  "  Publ.  St.  1882,  p.  489,  §  6. 

2  Dig.  St.  1884,  §  2533.  »  St.  1884,  §  3269  ;  Selby  v.  HoUings- 

3  Civ.  Cotle,   §  1304.  worth,  13  Lea,  145. 

*  Rev.  St.  1881,  §  2472.     This  statute  ^^  Yor  instance,  in  California,  Connecti- 

has  been  construed  as  applying  to  heirs  cut,  Florida,  Kentucky,  Maine,  Massachu- 

in  the  same  degree  only,  so  tliat  if  there  setts,    Michigan,    Minnesota,    Nebraska, 

be  no  brother  or  sister  of  the  wiiole  or  of  Nevada,  Virginia,   West   Virginia,    Wis- 

the  half  blood  of  tlie  intestate  having  the  consin,  and  perliaps  some  others, 

blood   of  tlie   ancestor   from    vviiom   the  ^®  Similar   principles    govern   in  these 

property  descended,  a  half-brother  not  of  cases  as  in  tlio^e  referred  to  above;  see 

the  blood  of  the  ancestor  takes  to  tlie  ex-  Smith  r.  Smith,  2  Biisli,  520  :  Duncan  c 

elusion  of  kindred  of  the  blood  of  such  Lnfferty.  C,  .T    J.   Marsh.  46;  Walden   i\ 

ancestor  of  a  more  remote  degree  :  Pond  Phillips,  5  S.  W.  R.  757. 

V.  Irvin,  113  Ind.  243.  i"  Nash  v.  Cutler,  16  Pick.  491,  409 

5  Neely  v.  Wise,  44  Iowa,  544.  Perkins   r.    Simonds,    28    Wis.    00,    04 

6  Dass.  St.  ch.  33,  §  29.  Wiesner  v.  Zaun,  39  Wis,  188,  204,  218 

7  Code,  art.  907  et  seq. ;  Hooke  v.  Hooke,  North's  Estate,  48  Conn.  583,  585  ;  Burke 
14  La.  22.  r.  Burke,  34  Mich.  451;  Jenks  v.  Trow- 

8  Howell's  St.  §  5776  n,  p.  1505.  bridge.  48  Mich.  94,  96.    But  the  terms  of 

9  St.  at  L.  1878,  p.  566,  §  7.  the  statute  cannot  be  enlarged  ;  therefore 
If  Comp.  St.  1887,  ch.  23,  §  33.  where  A.  died  a  minor  and  unmarried, 
"  Comp.  L.  1873,  §  797.  having  inherited  property  from  the  father, 
12  3  Banks  &  Bro.  (Vth  ed  )  p  2212,  §15.  and  the  next  day  B.,  a  sister  of  A.  and 

VOL.  I.  —  10 


146  PROPERTY  OF  INTESTATES.  §  71 

estates  derived  from  either  parent ;  ^  and  in  such  case,  if  there  be 
no  brothers  or  sisters  living  at  tlie  time  of  the  intestate's  death, 
the  ordinary  rules  of  descent  govern.^ 

§  71.  Descendants  taking  by  Representation.  —  The  reciprocal 
relationship  between  husband  and  wife,  parents  and  children,  and 
between  the  cliildrcn  themselves,  or  brothers  and  sisters,  exhausts 
the  sphere  of  tliose  intimate  bonds  which  unite  the  family  proper, 
in  its  primary  and  most  restricted  sense.  The  descendants  of  the 
children,  or  of  the  brothers  and  sisters,  are  not  included  in  this 
sphere,  because  they  belong  to  a  distinct  family,  which,  although 
closely  allied  to  the  former  as  springing  from  one  of  its  members, 
owes  its  integrity  to  the  addition  of  a  new  ingredient :  tlie  child 
or  brother  or  sister  has  married  ;  the  issue  of  such  marriage  is 
equally  allied  to  the  family  of  its  father  and  of  its  mother. 
Hence,  during  the  lifetime  of  the  child,  sister  or  brother,  parent 
of  the  issue  of  the  new  family,  the  law  looks  upon  such  issue  as 
not  belonging  to  the  original  family  of  either  of  its  parents,  and . 
excludes  it  from  the  inheritance  left  upon  the  death  of  any  of  its 
members,  the  parent  himself  being  entitled  thereto.  But  if  the 
parent  of  the  new  family  died  before  the  intestate  member  of  the 
old  family,  the  law  recognizes  such  issue  as  being  entitled  to  what 
the  deceased  child,  brother  or  sister,  would  have  been  entitled  to 
if  he  had  survived  the  intestate.^  Thus  the  issue  of  deceased 
cliildren,  brothers  and  sisters,  are  substituted  for  or  put  into  the 
Right  to  take  P^ace  of  their  parents  in  the  line  of  inheritance,  that 
byVpresenta-    |     ^jjg„  represent  them,  and  are  therefore  said  to  take 

tion  111  all  '  ""        -t 

descendants  ly  represeyitatioYi.  The  right  to  take  by  representation 
in  some'states  is  sccurcd  to  the  descendants  of  children  in  all  the 
ofbrothe?and  Statcs,  aud  to  the  descendants  of  brothers  and  sisters 
mSers  to        "1  most  of  them,  through  all  descending  generations,* 

a'«o  a  minor  and  unmarried,  died,  the  nia,  Colorado, -Delaware,  Florida,  Illinois, 
P*fite  inherited  hv  B.  from  A.  is  not  de-  Indiana,  Iowa,  Kansas,  Kentucky,  Lou- 
rived  from  the  father  ;  Goodrich  ?>.  Adams,  isiana,  Michigan,  Minnesota,  Missouri, 
138  Mass  552.  Nebraska,  Nevada,  New  York,  North  Car- 
"  1  Decos'ter  V.  Wing,  70  Me.  450;  Sedg-  olina  (as  held  in  Cromartie  r.  Kemp,  60 
wick«.  Minot,  6  Allen,  171,  174;  Cables  N.  C.  382,  384,  affirming  former  cases) 
V  Prescott  67  Me.  582 ;  Power  r.  Dough-  Ohio,  Oregon,  Rhode  Island  (as  held 
erty  83  Ky.  187.  in   Daball  v.  Field,   9  R.  I.  266,  289  et 

2  Decoster  y.  Wing,  .swprn  ,•  see  Good-  seq.),    Texas,     Virginia    (see    Davis     v. 
rich  V.  Adams,  138  Mass.  552.  Howe,  6  Rand.  355),  West  Virginia,  and 

3  Antp,  §  70.  Wisconsin.  _ 
*  So  in   Alabama,  Arkansas,  Califor- 


§  71  DESCENDANTS   TAKING    BY    REPRESENTATION.  147 

while  in  some  of  them  it  is  limited  to  the  ehildren  of  chiMron  of 

brothers  and 

brothers  and  sisters.^  sisters. 

The  question  whether  the  right  to  take  by  representation  ex- 
ists or  not,  has  an  important  bearing  in  ascertaining  the  heirship 
of  persons  related  to  the  intestate  in  a  remote  degree,  which  is 
fairly  illustrated  by  the  facts  of  a  case  decided  lately  in  Georgia.^ 
T.,  dying  intestate  as  to  a  portion  of  her  estate,  left  surviving 
grandchildren  of  an  aunt,  and  also  o-reat-a-randchildren  of  a 
deceased  brother,  claiming  through  W.,  their  mother,  the  grand- 
child of  the  brother,  who  had  died  before  the  intestate.  Tlie 
statute  of  Georgia  fixes  the  order  in  which  certain  of  the  relatives 
of  intestates  are  entitled  to  the  inheritance  nominatim,  and  then 
provides  "  that  the  more  remote  degrees  of  kindred  shall  be  de- 
termined by  the  rules  of  tlie  canon  law,  as  adopted  and  enforced 
in  the  English  courts  prior  to  the  4th  of  July,  1776."  It  also 
provides  for  representation  as  far  as  grandchildren  of  brothers 
and  sisters.  According  to  the  rules  of  the  canon  law,^  the  grand- 
children of  the  aunt  were  in  the  third,  and  the  great-grandchild- 
ren of  the  brother  in  the  fourth  degree,  and  it  was  accordingly 
decided  that  the  former  were  entitled  to  the  inheritance.  If 
W.,  the  grandchild  of  the  brother,  had  been  alive  at  the  time  of 
the  intestate's  death,  she  would  have  taken  to  the  exclusion  of 
the  other  branch,  by  representation  of  her  grandfather,  who  was 
a  brother.  But  since  the  statute  cut  off  representation  after 
grandchildren  of  deceased  brothers  and  sisters,  her  own  children 
could  take  nothing  by  representation.* 

1  In  Connecticut,  Georgia  (extended  tation,  so  that  cousins  take  in  preference 

1)3'   tlie  act  of  1859  to  grandchildren  of  to    second   and    tliird  cousins,   although 

brotliors   and   sisters),  Maine  (since  the  tlie  immediate  parents  of  the  latter  died 

Rev.   Statutes   of  1857,   c.  75,    §§  1,  8  :  before  the  intestate :  Schenck  v.  Vail.  2-t 

Davis  V   Stinson,  53  Me.  493),  Maryland,  N.  J.  Kq.  538,  540  ;  Reasley,  C.  J.,  in  Tay- 

Massnchusctis    (as   held    in    Bigelow    v.  lor  >:  Bray,  32  N.  J.  L.  182,  191),  Peim- 

Morong,   103   Mass.   287,  and   Conant  r.  sylvania   (extended   by   the  act  of  1855 

Kent,  130  Mass.  178),   Mississippi,  New  to  grandcliildren  :  Perot's  Appeal,  102  Pa. 

Hampshire,    New    Jersey     (the    statute  St.  235,  258),  South  Carolina,  Tennessee, 

being  silent  on  this  point,  it  was  origi-  and  Vermont  (as  held  in  Hatch  i'.  Hatch, 

nally  held  that  the  word  "issue"  included  21  Vt.  450,  455). 

all  des(.'endants  of   brothers  and  sisters,  -  Wetter  v.  Habersham,  60  Ga.  193. 

and   hence   introduced   the   principle   of  ^  See  post,  §  72. 

representation  -.  Den  dem,  Rodman  v.  *  It  is  also  noticeable,  that  if  the  de- 
Smith,  2  N.  J.  L.  2,  but  in  subsequent  grec  of  the  kindred  in  this  case  had  been 
cases  it  was  held  that  the  provision  of  computed  according  to  the  rules  of  the 
the  statute  securing  the  inheritance  to  civil  law,  the  greatgrandchildren  of  the 
the  next  in  degree  of  consanguinity  abo-  brother  would  have  been  in  the  same 
lished  the  common  law  rule  of  represen-  degree   with    the    grandchildren   of    the 


148  PEOPEKTY   OF   INTESTATES.  §   71 

The  rule  prohibiting  representation  farther  than  by  chihlren  of 
the  intestate's  brothers  and  sisters    is  adopted  from 

Rule  limiting  r  t\-        • 

the  right  by  the  English  Statute  of  Distribution,  and  has  been  ire- 
umkrEVgiish  qucutly  assertcd,  both  in  England  and  America.  In 
statute.  ^|j^  ^^g^  q£  Carter  v.  Crawley/  arising  a  few  years 

after  the  passage  of  the  statute,  its  language  was  construed  and 
the  reasons  upon  which  the  enactment  was  supposed  to  stand 
fully  stated.^  The  construction  then  put  upon  it  has  been  the 
English  law  ever  since.-'^ 

It  remains  to  notice  another  consequence  of  the  rule  allowing 
the  children  of  deceased  parents  to  take  the  parent's 

Heirs  take  per  .  ^ 

capiki  if  all  share  by  representation,  applicable  equally  to  lineal 
same  degree  and  Collateral  heirs  taking  by  representation.  If  the 
h\^;plTstn-pe's,  hcirs  all  stand  in  the  same  degree  of  consanguinity  to 
if  by  represen-    the  iiitcstate,  and  take  in  their  own  right  (none  of 

tation,  where  '  ^  ^ 

there  are  heirs    them  bv  representation),  they  take  equal  shares  each 

also  who  take  J         i  yi  j  i 

in  their  own       (joer  cajJitci)  ;  hciice  the  three  children  oi  a  deceased 
" '  ■  sister  of  the  intestate  and  the  only  child  of  a  deceased 

brother  take  each  one  fourth  part  of  the  estate,  in  disregard  of 
the  number  of  those  who  may  spring  from  a  common  parent, 
because  in  establishing  the  degree  of  kinship  they  do  not  represent 
such  parent.^  But  if  some  or  one  of  the  heirs  claim  in  their  own 
right,  that  is,  by  virtue  of  their  degree  of  consanguinity,  and  the 

aunt,    and    would    have    been    entitled  posed  every  man  would  leave  his  estate 

equally  with  them,  aside  from  the  ques-  to  his  next  kindred :  but  the  children  of 

tion  of  representation,  per  capita.  those  that  are  deceased  come  not  within 

1  T.  Raym.  496.  this  reason,  for  they  are  a  degree  more 

2  "In  respect  of  the  intestate  it  may  remote.  .  .  .  Now  the  case  of  a  brother's 
be  thought  an  obligation  upon  every  man  children  is  of  a  mixed  consideration  : 
to  provide  for  those  which  descend  from  1.  In  respect  of  the  obligation,  for  the 
his  loins  ;  and  as  the  administrator  is  to  intestate  was  a  kind  of  parent  to  his 
discharge  all  otlier  debts,  so  this  debt  to  brother's  children,  and  in  that  respect 
nature  should  likewise  exact  a  distribu-  marriages  between  them  are  forbidden, 
tion  to  all  that  descend  from  him  in  the  2.  There  is  no  danger  that  the  subdivis- 
lincal  degrees,  be  they  never  so  remote,  ions  should  be  very  many  and  the  estate 
And  because  those  which  are  remote  reduced  into  very  small  parts  ;  for  broth- 
have  not  so  much  of  his  blood,  therefore  ers  and  sisters  cannot  be  many,  as  cou- 
tlie  measure  should  be  according  to  the  sin-germans  and  other  remote  degrees 
stocks,  more  or  less  as  they  stand  in  re-  may,  therefore  there  may  be  reason  to 
lation  to  him.  Upon  this  reason  repre-  admit  brothers'  children  to  distribution 
sentations  are  admitted  to  all  degrees  in  by  representation,  and  reject  all  farther 
the    lineal   descent.     There   is   no   such  degrees." 

obligation   to   the  remote  kindred  in  a  ^  Wms.  Ex.   [1512],  citing  numerous 

collateral  line,  therefore  they  are  not  re-  English  authorities. 

garded  but  in   respect  of    proximity  as  *  Jansen  v.  Bury,  Bunb.  157. 

they  are  next  of  kin,  it  being  to  be  sup- 


§  71  DESCENDANTS   TAKING    BY   REPRESENTATION.  149 

claim  of  others  rests  upon  the  rei)rcscutatioii  of  a  deceased  parent 
or  ancestor,  who,  if  living,  would  be  in  that  degree,  then  the  latter 
take  per  stirpes,  that  is,  collectively  as  much  as  the  deceased  par- 
ent or  ancestor  would  have  taken,  while  the  former  take  ^^tr  capita. 
The  whole  estate  in  such  case  is  to  be  divided  by  the  sum  of  the 
number  of  those  claiming  in  their  own  right  plus  the  number 
of  stirps  represented  by  their  descendants,  the  descendants  col- 
lectively of  each  stirps  taking  his  share.  So  that  the  thirty-two 
nephews  and  nieces  of  an  intestate,  and  the  twenty-five  grand- 
nephews  and  grand-nieces  and  unknown  heirs  of  a  deceased  niece, 
take,  the  former  per  capita,  the  latter  per  stirpes.^ 

The  question  sometimes  arises,  whether  advancements  made  to, 
or  debts  owing  the  intestate  by,  heirs  who  die  before  Liability  of 
the  intestate,  leaving  children  who  thereby  become  heirs  i.y  repre- 

'  o  "^  seutation  tor 

heirs,  are  to  be  deducted  from  the  distributive  shares  debts  of  and 

.       .    ,  ,   .      advancements 

of  these  children.  It  seems  clear  on  principle,  and  is  to  their 
supported  by  the  preponderance  of  adjudged  cases, 
that,  in  the  absence  of  a  statutory  regulation,  a  distinction  must 
be  drawn  between  advancements  and  debts ;  and  also  between 
heirs  taking  in  their  own  right,  and  those  taking  by  representa- 
tion. Heirs  taking  in  their  own  right  directly  from  the  intestate 
by  virtue  of  their  propinquity  of  blood,  not  being  liable  for  the 
debts  of  their  ancestors,  and  these  because  they  died  before  the 
intestate  having  no  interest  in  the  inheritance,  so  that  there  is  no 
connection  or  correlation  between  the  inheritance  and  the  debt, 
take  their  shares  free  from  any  deduction  on  account  of  debts 
owing  by  their  parents  or  ancestors  to  the  intestate.^     But  heirs 

1  Copenhaver  v.  Copenliaver,   9   Mo.  ^  Posf,  §  554,  page  1216,  note?;  Ken- 

App.   200,  201,    affirmed   in   78  Mo.  65.  dall  v.  Mondell,  (57  Md.  444 ;  Il.genfritz's 

The  difficulty  in  this  case  arose  out  of  Appeal,  5  Watts,  25 ;   Carson  i-.  Carson,  1 

the    peculiar    wording    of    the    Missouri  Met.  (Ky.)   300  (this  case   turned  upon 

statute,  which  was  held  to  bo  in  affirm-  a  statute  giving  to  the  issue  of  a  legatee 

ance  of  the  English  Statute  of  Distribu-  dying    before    the    testator    tlie    estate 

tions,  Iladen,  J.,  citing  numerous  English  willed  to  the  legatee,  but  involves    tin- 

and    American    cases    in   support   of   its  same  principle)  ;  Simp.^on  v.  Simpson,  Ki 

construction.     See  2  Bla.  Comm.  217;  4  111.  App.  170,  holding  that  the  release  by 

Kent   Comni.  390  et  seq. ;    Cox   v.   Cox,  an  heir  of  all  cdaim  and  right  as  such  in 

44  Ind.   308,  370,  in  which   Buskirk,  J.,  favor  of  his  co-heirs   would  bo  enforced 

learnedly  reviews  the  authorities  ;  Crump  in  equity  if  he  survived  the  intestate,  or 

r.  Faucett,  70  N.  C.  345;  Blake  v.  Blake,  as  an  executed  contract  binding  on  his 

85  Ind.  65 ;   Nichols  v.  Shcpard,  63  N.  II.  heirs  if  not,  but  cannot  operate   to  de- 

391  ;  Preston  v.  Cole,  13  Ail.  R.  (N.  H.)  prive  his  children  of  tiieir  right  to  inherit 

788  ;    Sedgwick  v.  Minot,  6   Allen,    171,  if  he  die  before  the  intestate.     To  same 

174.  effect:  Bishop  i;.  Davenport,  58  111.  105; 


150  PROPERTY    OF   INTESTATES.  §  72 

taking  by  representation  take  not  in  their  own  right,  but  in  virtue 
of  the  right  transmitted  to  them  by  the  deceased  heir ;  hence  it 
may  be  said  that  they  can  take  no  more  than  the  latter  could 
have  taken  if  he  had  survived  the  intestate.^  The  same  result 
follows  where  the  statute  declares  that  the  issue  of  a  deceased 
heir  shall  take  such  share  only  as  would  have  descended  to  the 
parent  if  living  at  the  death  of  the  intestate."^  The  distinction 
between  debts  owing  by  an  heir  and  advancements  made  to  him 
by  the  intestate  is  sharply  drawn  ;  in  some  States  debts  so  owing 
cannot  be  deducted  from  the  share  of  the  heir  in  the  real  estate, 
and  from  the  personal  estate  only  by  way  of  set-off,^  but  the  true 
principle  seems  to  be  that  a  debt  owing  by  an  heir  constitutes 
part  of  the  assets  of  the  estate,  as  much  as  that  of  any  other 
debtor,  for  which  he  should  account  before  he  can  be  allowed  to 
receive  anything  out  of  the  other  assets ;  ^  and  it  has  been  so 
held  in  the  United  States.^  This  point  is  also  discussed  in  con- 
nection with  the  subject  of  advancements.*^ 

§  72.  Computation  of  the  Next  of  Kin.  —  It  IS  thus  seen,  that  in 
all  the  States  brothers  and  sisters  and  the  children  of  deceased 
Brothers  and  brothcrs  and  sisters  are  placed  in  the  first  degree  of 
theiTdesmid-  collateral  heirs,  and  that  in  twenty-nine  of  them  all 
ants  in  first       ^jjgjj.  descendants  are  relegated  to  the  same  degree  by 

class  of  collai-  ° 

erai  heirship,  representation  upon  the  death  of  intermediate  ances- 
tors. The  further  order  of  succession  is  indicated  in  some  States 
Later  classes  by  the  statutes  thcmselvcs,  mostly  placing  grand- 
by"u'tutr  fathers,  grandmothers,  uncles,  and  aunts  in  the  next 
class,  together  with  descendants  by  representation,  or  placing 
these  in  a  postponed  class,  as  the  case  may  be ; '  but  more  gener- 

Kershaw  v.  Kershaw,  102   111.   307,  311.  *  Courtenay  v.  Williams,  3  Hare,  539, 

In  Louisiana  this  principle  is  established  553,  holding  that  the  debt  should  be  de- 

by  several  decisions  :  Destrehan  v.  Des-  ducted  although  barred  by  the  Statute  of 

trehan,  16  Mart.  (vol.  4,  n.  s.)  557,  578;  Limitations. 

Succession  of  Morgan,  23  La.  An.  290 ;  ^  Smith  v.  Kearney,  2  Barb.  Ch.  533, 
Calhoun  v.  Crossgrove,  33  La.  An.  1001.  542  ;  Wilson  r.  Kelly,  16  S.  C.  216  (hold- 
See  also,  as  to  the  marital  rights  of  a  sur-  i'lg  that  the  debt  must  be  deducted 
viving  wife  in  this  connection.  Succession  although  the  heir  had  obtained  his  dis- 
of  PifEet,  39  La.  An.  556,  564.  charge  in  bankruptcy)  ;  post,  §  564,  and 

1  Earnest  v.  Earnest,  5  Rawle,  213, 218.  cases. 

2  As,  for  instance,  in   Pennsylvania  :  ®  Post,  §  554. 

McConkey  v.  McConkey,  9  Watts,  352.  ^  So  in  Arkansas,  Colorado,  Florida, 

3  Procter  v.   Newiiall,   17    Mass.    81,  Georgia,  Missouri,  Rhode  Island,  Texas, 
93 ;  Hancock  v.  Hubbard,  19  Pick.  167  ;  Virginia,  and  West  Virginia. 
Dearborn  v.  Preston.  7  Allen,  192,  195. 


§  72  COMPUTATION   OF   THE   NEXT   OF   KIN.  151 

ally  a  mode  of  ascertaining  the  next  of  kin,  in  degrees  more 
remote  than  that  of  brothers  and  sisters  and  tlieir  descendants,  is 
pointed  out,  either  by  the  statute,^  or  by  referring-  to  the  rules  of 
the  common  ^  or  the  civil  law,^  of  which  it  is  therefore  necessary 
to  take  further  notice. 

Blackstone  treats  of  consanguinity  under  two  heads,  the  lin- 
eal and  the  collateral.     Lineal  consanguinity  is  that  Avhich  sub- 
sists between  persons  of  whom  one  is  descended  in  a  ^.^^^^^^  ^^^ 
direct  line  from  the  other,  as  between  the  intestate  coiiatinii  con- 

n .-      1  J  saiiguiuity. 

and  his  father,  grandfather,  great-grandiather,  and  so 
upward  in  the  ascending  line ;  or  between  the  intestate  and  his 
son,  grandson,  great-grandson,  and  so  downward  in  the  direct 
descending  line.  Every  generation,  either  upward  or  downward, 
constitutes  a  different  degree.  Tiiis  is  the  only  natural  way  of 
reckoning  the  degrees  in  the  direct  line,  and  is  common  to  the 
civil,  canon,  and  common  law.^  Collateral  kindred  descend  from 
the  same  stock  or  ancestor,  but  not  one  from  the  other.  The 
ancestor  is  the  stirps,  or  root,  the  stipes,  trunk  or  common  stock, 
from  which  these  relations  are  branched  out.  The  method  of 
computing  the  degrees  of  collateral  kindred  is  the  same  at  the 
common  law  as  at  the  canon  law,  from  which  it  has  been  adopted 
into  the  common  law,^  and  begins  with  the  common  ancestor, 
reckoning  downward ;  in  whatever  degree  the  claimant  is  distant 

1  Arkansas  (but  in  cases  not  provided  481,  the  statute  being  silent),  New  Jer- 

for  by  tiie  statute  the  common  law  is  to  sey  (as  held  in  Taylor  i-.  Bray,  32  N.  J. 

govern),    California,    Colorado,    Florida,  L.  182,  191,  and  Schenck  v.  Vail,  24  N.  J. 

Georgia    (Wetter  v.  H«>,bersliam,  60  Ga.  Eq.  538,  542  ;  but  it  is  held  in  New  Jer- 

193),  Iowa,  Kansas,  Kentucky,  Louisiana,  sey    that   the  rule   of   the  common  law, 

Maryland,  Missouri,  New  York  (in  cases  that  inheritance  cannot  lineally  ascend, 

not  provided  for  by  statute  the  inheritance  has  not  been  abolished,  though  modified 

is  to  descend  by  the  rules  of  the  common  to  the  extent  of  letting  in  the  father  and 

law),  Rhode  Island  (see  Pierce  v   Pierce,  mother:  Taylor  y.  Bray,  sw/ira,  p.  186  ;  the 

14  R.  I.  514),  South  Carolina,  Tennessee,  great-uncle  and  cousin  of  an  intestate  are 

Texas,  Virginia,  West  Virginia,  and  Wis-  of  equal  consanguinity,  and  both  inherit 

consin.  equally:    Smith  v.  Gaines,  36  N.  J.  Eq. 

■^  Arkansas  (in  cases  not  provided  for  297),  Ohio  (as  held  in  Clayton  v.  Drake, 

by    statute).    Now    York    (same).   North  17  Oh.  St.  367,  371 ),  Oregon.  Pennsylvania 

Carolina  (as  modified  by  the  statute).  (as  held  in  McDowell  v.  Addams,.45  Pa. 

8  In  Alabama.  Connecticut,  Delaware,  St.  430,  432),  and  Vermont. 
Illinois,  Indiana  (although  the  enactment  ■*  2  Bla.  Comm.  202,  and  authorities, 

was  omitted  in  late  revisions,  it  is  held  ^  This    assertion    lias  been    doubted  : 

still  to  be  the  law  in  this  State  :  Cloud  c.  see  Beasley,  C.  J.,  in  Schenck  v.  Vail,  24 

Bruce,  Gl  Ind.  171,  173),  Maine,  Massa-  N.  J.  Eq.  538.  550,  who  suggests  that  the 

cliusetts.    Michigan,    Minnesota,    Missis-  authority    vouched   by    Blackstone   does 

sippi,    Nebraska,    Nevada,    New    Hamp-  not  sustain  him  in  this  dogma, 
shire   (Kelsey   v.  Hardy,  20  N.  H.   479, 


1,32  PROPERTY    OF    INTESTATES.  §  72 

from  the  ancestor  common  to  him  and  the  intestate,  that  is  the 
degree  in  which  they  are  rehated.^  But  if  there  are  more  degrees 
between  the  intestate  and  the  ancestor  than  between  the  ancestor 
and  the  claimant,  then  the  degrees  are  reckoned  between  the 
intestate  and  the  ancestor  ;  or,  in  other  words,  in  counting  npward 
from  the  intestate  to  the  ancestor,  and  downward  from  the  ances- 
tor to  the  lieir,  the  longest  of  these  two  lines  indicates  the  degree 
of  consanguinity. 

The  civilians  count  upward  from  the  intestate  to  the  common 
ancestor,  and  from  him  downward  to  the  heir,  reckoning  one 
degree  for  each  step  taken,  adding  the  degrees  in  the 
acShiyt*"  ascending  line  to  tliose  in  the  descending  line,  and 
the  civilians.  ^^^^  ^^^^^^  indicates  the  degree  of  consanguinity  between 
the  intestate  and  the  person  whose  heirship  is  to  be  established. 

The  different  results  obtained  in  adopting  either  of  these  two 
methods  of  computing  the  degrees  of  consanguinity  is  illustrated 
by  Blackstone  in  tracing  the  kinship  between  King 
[difference  Richard  III.  and  King  Henrv  VII.  of  English  history, 
in  computing,  ^j^^.^,  eommou  ancestor  being  Edward  HI.  From  him 
(abavus)  to  Edmond,  Duke  of  York,  the  proavus  is  one  degree  ; 
to  Richard,  Earl  of  Cambridge,  the  avus,  two;  to  Richard,  Duke 
of  York,  the  pater,  three;  to  King  Richard  III.,  the  intestate, 
four;  and  from  King  Edward  III.  to  John  of  Gant  is  one  de- 
gree ;  to  John,  Earl  of  Somerset,  two ;  to  John,  Duke  of  Somerset, 
three ;  to  Margaret,  Countess  of  Richmond,  four  ;  to  King  Henry 
VII.,  five ;  "  which  last-mentioned  prince,  being  the  farthest 
removed  from  the  common  stock,  gives  the  denomination  to  the 
degree  of  kindred  in  the  canon  and  municipal  law.  Though, 
according  to  the  computation  of  the  civilians,  .  .  .  these  two 
princes  were  related  in  the  ninth  degree ;  for  from  King  Richard 
HI.  to  Richard,  Duke  of  York,  is  one  degree ;  to  Richard,  Earl  of 
Cambridge,*  two ;  to  Edmond,  Duke  of  York,  three ;  to  King 
Edward  HI.,  the  common  ancestor,  four;  to  John  of  Gant,  five  ; 
to  John,  Earl  of  Somerset,  six  ;  to  John,  Duke  of  Somerset,  seven  ; 
to  Margaret,  Countess  of  Richmond,  eight ;  to  King  Henry  VII., 
nine."  ^ 

Under  these  several  methods  of  computation  very  different  col- 
lateral relatives  are  placed  in  the  same  degree  of  propinquity ;  the 
grandfather's  grandfather,  for  instance,  is  in  the  fourth  degree ; 
1  2  Bla.  Comm.  206.  ^  2  Bla.  Coram.  207. 


§  73  DEVOLUTION   OF    ANCESTRAL   ESTATES.  153 

under  the  rules  of  the  civil  law,  the  graud-unclc,  cousin  trerman, 
and  grand-nephew  arc  equally  in  the  fourth  degree  ;  while  ac- 
cording to  the  canon  or  common  law,  the  great-grand-uncle,  the 
grandfather's  cousin,  his  cousin's  son  and  grandson,  the  grand- 
uncle's  great-grandson,  the  uncle's  grandson,  and  the  brother's 
great-grandson  arc  all  e(iually  in  the  fourth  degree.  To  avoid  the 
division  of  an  inheritance  into  unduly  small  fractions,  and  to  sim- 
plify the  rules  of  descent,  the  statutes  mostly  provide  that,  where 
two  or  more  of  the  same  degree  of  consanguinity  claim  as  next 
of  kin,  those  who  trace  their  blood  through  the  nearest  lineal  an- 
cestor shall  be  preferred  to  those  whose  ancestor  is  more  remote 
from  the  intestate.^ 

§73,    Devolution    of    Ancestral   Estates.  —  It   has   already   been 
noticed,  in  connection  with  the  relative  rights  of  brothers  and 
sisters  of  the  whole  and  of  the  half  blood,^  that  some  ^^^.g^t^^j  gg. 
of  the  States  distiniruisli,  in  the  devolution  of  prop-  tf  es  pass  to 
erty,  between  that  which  has  been  acquired  by  the  blood  ofthe 
intestate  himself,  and  such  as  he  may  have  inherited 
or  acquired  by  gift  or  devise  from  some  ancestor  or  person  from 
whom  the  estate  is  derived.     The  inheritance  is  directed  to  pass, 
in  such  cases,  to  lineal  and  collateral  heirs  of  the  blood  of  such 
ancestor,  in  Alabama,^  Arkansas,"*  Connecticut,^  Indiana,^  Mary- 
land," Michigan,^  Nebraska,^  Nevada,!*^  Xew  Jersey,"  New  York,i2 
Ohio,^3   Pennsylvania,^^  Rhode    Island,^^   and    Tennessee.^^ 

The  term  "  ancestor  "  used  in  these  statutes  is  not  to  be  under- 
stood as  applicable  only  to  progenitors  in  the  usual  acceptation, 

1  So  in  Arkansas,  California,  Colorado,  ^  ggn    gj  1387,  §  682. 
Delaware,     Florida,    Kentucky,    Maine,  '^  Rev.  St.  1881.  §  2471. 
Maryland,  Massachusetts,  Micliigan,  Min-  '  Rev.  Code,  1878.  p.  404.  §  .3  et  seq. 
riesota,    Missouri,    Nevada,    New    York,  8  Howell's  St.  1882,  §  5776  (i,  p.  1505. 
Oregcon,  Rhode    Island,    Virginia,    West  ^  Comp.  St.  1887,  ch.  23,  §  33. 
Virginia,    and    Wisconsin.      It    will    be  i'  Comp.  L.  1873,  §  797. 

noticed     that,    where    representation    is  "  Rev.  1877,  p.  207,  §3  ;  p.208,  §§  5,  6; 

aHowed,  the  same  result  is   readied  by  Speer  v.  Miller,  37  N.  J.  Eq.  492;  Miller 

that  means,   differing    only,  perhaps,   in  v.  Speer,  38  N.  J.  Eq.  667. 

respect  of  the  privity  between  the  persons  ^'^  3  Banks  &  Bro.,  p.  2211,  §  5 ;  p.  2212, 

representing  and  those  represented,  wiiich  §  10. 

is   an   incident   to    representation.      See  is  Rgv.  St.  1880,  §  4158;  Stannard  v. 

ante,  §  71,  page  149,  note  2  et  seq.  Case,  40  Oh.  St.  211. 

2  Ante,  §  70.  "  Bright.  Purd.  Dig.  9.32,  §  27  ;  Perot's 
8  Code,  1886,  §  1919.     See  Stalhvorth  Appeal,  102  Pa.  St.  235. 

V.  Stallworth,  29  Ala.  76,  80;  Eatman  r.         '5  Pub.  St.  1882,  p.  489,  §  6. 
Eatman,  83  Ala.  478.  is  Code,  1884,  §  3269. 

*  Dig.  1884,  §  2531  ;  Beard  v.  Mosely, 
30  Ark.  517,  citing  other  Arkansas  cases. 


154  PROPERTY   OF   INTESTATES.  §  74 

but  as   including   any  person  from  whom  an  estate 

Ancestor  o  ./     i 

means  any  passcs ;  ^  it  is  the  Correlative  of  "heir,  ^  the  eom- 
whonithees-  mune  vinculum,  whether  the  estate  ascends  or  de- 
scends.^ From  its  nature  personal  property  cannot 
often  be  traced  back  to  an  ancestor  ;  hence  it  has  been  held  that  the 
rule  affecting  ancestral  estates  is  applicable  only  to  real  estate.* 
The  rule  is  rarely  or  never  apijlicable  to  the  children  of  the  intes- 
tate, and  generally  distinguishes  between  kindred  of  a  more  remote 
degree,  or  between  those  of  the  full  and  those  of  the  half  blood, 
in  which  case  those  of  the  preferred  degree,  or  of  the  full  blood, 
if  any,  will  take,  without  reference  to  the  derivation  of  the  estate, 
to  the  exclusion  of  those  postponed,  whether  of  the  blood  of  the 
ancestor  or  not.^  These  statutes  have  also  been  construed  as 
referring  to  the  immediate  ancestor  of  the  intestate,  and  not 
applicable  to  estates  derived  remotely,  whether  by  gift,  devise,  or 
descent.^      In  determining  whether  real  estate  is  an- 

Kules  in  ascer-  ° 

tainins  ances-    ccstral  or  otherwise,  the  course  of  descent  is  controlled 
by  the  legal  title,"  that  title  under  which  the  intestate 
immediately  held,^    and  the  statutes  are  to  be    construed  upon 
legal  rather  than  equitable  principles.^ 

§  74.  Posthumous  Children.  —  Posthumous  children,  born  with- 
in the  usual  period  of  gestation  after  the  death  of  the  intestate, 
are  entitled  to  inherit  from  an  intestate  father  in  the 
children  in-  samc  manner  as  if  they  were  born  during  his  lifetime 
wTth  otiie'i  ^  and  had  survived  him.^*^  This  riile  is  said  to  be  the 
children.  game  Under  the  common   and  the   civil  law,^i  and  is 

1  Prickett  v.  Parker,  3  Oh.  St.  304,  564,  568;  Clark  v.  Shailer,  46  Conn.  119, 
citing  earlier  Ohio  oases  to  same  effect;  121;  Curren  v.  Taylor,  19  Oh.  36;  Morris 
Campbell  J.  in  Bailey  v.  Bailey,  25  Mich.  v.  Potter,  10  R.  I.  58,  70 ;  Wheeler  v. 
185,  188.  Clutterbuck,  52  N.  Y.  67,  70. 

2  Webster ;  Abb.  Law  Diet.  "  Ances-  '^  Patterson  v.  Lamson,  12  N.  East.  R. 
tor,"  and  autiiorities  cited  and  quoted  581,  535;  Shepard  v.  Taylor,  15  R.  I. 
using  the  term  in  either  the  popular  or  204. 

technical  sense.  "  Brower  v.  Hunt.  18  Oh.  St.  311,  342. 

3  Lewis  V.  Gorman,  5  Pa.  St.  164,  166,  ^  Armington  v.  Armington,  28  Ind.  74, 
quoting  from  Bevan  v.  Taylor,  7  Serg.  &     76  ;  Patterson  v.  Lamson,  supra. 

R.  .397,  404.  ^°  4  Kent  Comm.  412,  adding  that  such 

4  Henderson  v.  Sherman,  47  Mich.  267,  is  the  universal  rule  in  this  country.  But 
274.  the  rule  is  universal  only  as  stated  in  tlie 

6  Ryan  v.  Andrews,  21  Mich.  229,  234  text,  namely,  between  the  intestate  and 

et  seq.;  Rowley  r.  Stray,  32  Mich.  70,  76 ;  his  own  children.     See  infm,  as  to  the 

Chaney  v.   Barker,   3  Baxt.   424,  citing  States  distinguishing  between  the  intes- 

Nesbiti'.  Bryan,  1  Swan,  468.  tate's  children  and  other  heirs. 

*>  Story,  J.,  in  Gardner  v.  Collins,  2  Pet.  "  1  Bla.  Comm.  130,  quoting  the  civil 

58,  91  et  seq.;  Oliver  v.  Vance,  34  Ark.  law  maxim,  Qui  in  utero  sunt,  injure  civili 


§  74  POSTHUMOUS   CHILDREN.  155 

based  upon  the    })riiiciple  that  a  child   in   vriitre  m  mere  is   in 
rerum  iiatura,  as  much  so  as  if  born  in  the  father's  lifetime,'  and 
is  so  considered  for  all  jjurposcs  which  are  for  his  benefit.^     Kut 
while  the  rule  is  recognized  in  all  the  States  in  favor  .^.^^.^  ^^^^^  .^ 
of   the  intestate's  own  children,  being   affirmatively  wntin.'d,  in 

'  °       ^       ,  ''     some  states,  (o 

enacted  by  statute  in  most  of  them,^  it  is  in  others  tiie  intestate's 

■       .  1        1  -1  T  1  ii  1     •         own  children. 

limited  to  the  intestate  s  children,  and  no  other  heirs 

not  in  being  before  the  intestate's  death  are  allowed  to  participate 

in  his  estate  by  inheritance.** 

The  ordinary  period  of  gestation  is  fixed  by  medical  writers  at 
ten   lunar  months ;  but  there  are  many  well  autheii-  Ten  months 
ticated  cases  in  which  it  was  extended  much  longer.'^  period  o't'S- 
It  is  in  some   States  fixed  by  statute  at  ten  months,  ^^*'""- 
during  which  the  legitimacy  of  the  issue  is  presumed. 

Questions  sometimes  arise  in  respect  of  the  validity  of  the  dis- 
position of  property  in  which  a  child  is  interested,  after  the 
father's  death  and  before  its  birth.     It  is  held  that  a  ^. 

Disposition  of 

disposition  made  of  the  property  for  its  preservation  proiK-rty  after 

.,,.111,  father's  death 

or  protection  will  be  binding  upon  the  child,  although  and  before 
it  was  not  represented  in  the  proceeding  for  the  con- 
version, because  the  posthumous  child  did  not  possess,  until  born, 
any  such  estate  in  the  property  as  could  affect  the  power  of 
the  court  to  convert  it  if  necessary.^  In  Virginia  it  is  also  held 
that  parties  in  being,  possessing  an  estate  of  inheritance,  are 
regarded  as  so  far  representing  all  persons  who,  being  afterward 
born,  may  have  interests  in  the  same,  that  a  decree  binding  them 
will  also  bind  the  after-born  parties;"  and  in  South  Carolina,  that 
a  court  of  equity  may  bar,  by  its  decree  for  sale,  the  interest  of 
unborn  contingent  remaindermen,  who,  of  course,  could  not  be 
made  parties.^     But  a  sale  of  the  real  estate  before  the  birth  of  a 

intelllgnntur   in  rere   naturam  esse,  cum   de  *  Tn    Alabama,    Arkansas,    Colorado, 

eorum  romiiiodu  (u/diur.  Florida,  Maryland,  Missouri,  Ohio,  Rhode 

1  Wallis  V.  Hodson,  2  Atk.  116;  Mor-  Island,  Tennessee  (see  Melton  v.  David- 
row  r.  Scott,  7  Ga.  535,  537  ;  Hill  y.  Moore,  son,  5  S.  W.  K.  530),  and  Texas.  See 
1  Murph.  283,  251.  Shriver  v.  State,  05  Md.  278,  2S3. 

■i  Doe  r.  Clarke,  2  H.  Blaekst.  399,  401 ;  »  Wharton  &  Stille,  Med.  Jurispr.,  §  41 

Hall  V.  Hancock,  15  Pick.  255,  258.  et  seq. 

8  In    California,    Delaware,   Georgia,  ^  Knotts  v.  Stearns,  91  U   S.  638. 

Illinois,    Kansas,    Kentucky,    Louisiana,  "  Ibid.,  referring  to  the  case  of  Faulk- 

Massachusetts,  Michigan,  Minnesota,  Ne-  ncr  v.  Davis,  18  Gratt.  651. 
braska.  New  Jersey,   New  York,  North  ^  Bofil  v.  Fisher,  3  Rich.  Eq.  1. 

Carolina,  Oregon,  Pennsylvania,  Virginia, 
West  Virginia,  and  Wisconsin. 


156 


PROPERTY   OF   INTESTATES. 


§75 


posthumous  child  does  not  dcinive  it  of  its  interest  in  such  land.^ 
In  Michigan  the  statute  provides  that  "  posthumous  children  are 
considered  as  living  at  the  death  of  their  parents."  ^ 

§  75.  Illegitimate  Children.  —  According  to  the  common  law  an 
illegitimate  child  is  Jilius  nullius,  and  can  have  no  father  known 
iiieg-itimate       to  the   law  ;  ^  he   has  no  inheritable   blood,  and  can 

child  has  no  ,  ' 

inheritable       thcreforc  bc  tlic  heir  to  neither  his  putative  father  nor 

blood  at  com- 
mon law.  mother,  nor  any  one  else,  and  can  have  no  heir  but 

of  his  own  body.'*     The  rigor,  not  to  say  cruelty  of  the  civil  law, 

The  severitj'     wliicli  denied  even  maintenance  to  the  fruit  of  incestu- 

reiaxed'^hAhe    o^^^  intercourse,^  and  of  the  common  law,  allowing  a 

United  States,    b^gtard  no  rights  but  such  as  he  himself  acquires,^  and 

renders  legitimation  impossible,  although  the  parents  marry  after 

birth,'''  has  been  much  relaxed  in  the  several  States  of  the  Union. 

Thus   they  are   almost   universally  allowed   to  inherit  from  the 

mother  and  through  the  mother :  ^  and  in  Connecticut,  where  the 


1  Pearson  v.  Carlton,  18  S.  C.  47. 

2  Catholic  Association  v.  Flrnane,  50 
Mich.  82,  85. 

3  Taney,  Ch.  J.,  in  Brewer  v.  Blougher, 
14  Pet.  178,  198. 

4  1  Bla.  Conim.  459 ;  2  Kent  Comm.  212 ; 
Schoul.  Dom.  Rel.  §  277,  quoting  from 
Blackstone  :  "  And  really,"  says  Black- 
stone,  witii  warmth,  as  if  to  atone  lor  a 
long  and  fallacious  argument  against  legit- 
imation by  subsequent  marriage,  "any 
other  distinction  but  that  of  not  inherit- 
ing, which  civil  policy  renders  necessary, 
would,  with  regard  to  the  innocent  off- 
spring of  his  parents'  crimes,  be  odious, 
unjust,  and  cruel  to  the  last  degree"; 
and  then  adds  :  "  And  so  might  the  com- 
mentator of  the  commentaries  stigmatize 
the  efforts  of  those  who  have  nothing 
better  to  urge  against  human  rights  than 
the  importance  of  preserving  the  sym- 
metry of  the  law  unimpaired." 

&  1  Bla.  Comm.  458,  citing  Nov.  89, 
c.  15. 

6  Even  his  name  must  be  acquired  by 
reputation  •  Co.  Litt.  3. 

7  1  Bl.  Comm.  454. 

^  So  by  positive  enactment  in  Ala- 
bama, Arkansas,  California,  Florida, 
Georgia,  Illinois,  Indiana,  Iowa,  Kansas, 
Kentucky,  Maine,  Maryland,  Massachu- 
setts,    Michigan,     Minnesota,    Missouri, 


Mississippi,  Nebraska,  Nevada,  New 
Hampshire,  New  Jersey  (if  she  leave  no 
lawful  issue).  New  York  (in  default  of 
legitima.te  issue).  North  Carolina  (if  no 
legitimate  issue,  and  cannot  represent  the 
mother),  Ohio,  Oregon  (but  does  not  rep- 
resent the  mother),  Pennsylvania,  Rhode 
Island,  Tennessee,  Texas,  Vermont,  Vir- 
ginia, West  Virginia,  and  Wisconsin. 

In  Massachusetts  the  law  constituting 
illegitimate  children  heirs  of  the  mother 
and  of  any  "  maternal  ancestor  "  is  strictly 
construed  ;  the  term  "  ancestor  "  is  con- 
strued to  mean  progenitor,  and  it  is  con- 
sequently held  that  neither  a  bastard  nor 
his  issue  can  take  from  the  mother's  col- 
lateral kindred :  Pratt  v.  Atwood,  108 
Mass.  40 ;  nor  they  through  her:  Haraden 
V.  Larrabee,  113  Mass.  4oO,  432.  In  Rhode 
Island  illegitimates  are  put  upon  the  same 
footing  with  legitimates  as  to  the  mother  : 
Briggs  V.  Greene,  10  R.  I.  495,  497.  To 
same  effect:  Burlington  v.  Fosby,  6  Vt. 
83,  88  ;  Garland  v.  Harrison,  8  Leigh,  368, 
370;  Bales  v.  Elder,  118  111.  4-36;  Jenkins 
V.  Diane,  121  111.  217.  In  Kentucky  it  is 
held  that  the  lawful  children  of  a  deceased 
bastard  inherit  from  the  bastard  brother 
of  such  parent  by  the  same  mother, 
although  such  bastard  brother  died  before 
the  death  of  the  parent :  Sutton  i'.  Sutton, 
8  S.  W.  R.  337. 


§75 


ILLEGITIMATE   CHILDREN. 


157 


statute  gives  the  estate  to  tlic  "children"  of  an  intestate,  without 
in  any  way  qualifying-  the  word,  it  has  been  held  that  illegitinaate 
children  were  thereby  included.^     In  some  of  the  States  Bastards  in- 
thc  illegitimate  ofi'spring  may  also  be  enal)led  to  in-  kn"wie(i'j!ced 
hcrit  from  the  father,  if  the  latter  acknowledge  him  by  the  father, 
in  writing  in  the  presence  of  a  competent  witness;'-  and  the  sub- 
sequent   marriage    of    the    parents   legitimates   their  jyjjj^^j.,^^  „f 
issue,  if  acknowledged  by  the  father,  in  nearly  all  the  fw>'u>  k-^'iti- 

'  "  •'  1         1  M      mates  bastard. 

States,  cancelling  all  distinction  between  such  chil- 
dren and  those  begotten  and  born  in  lawful  wedlock.^  If  an 
illegitimate  child  is  once  legitimated  by  the  subsequent  marriage 
of  the  parents  in  a  State  whose  laws  attach  such  effect  to  such 
marriage,  the  legitimacy  follows  the  child  everywhere,  and  entitles 
him  to  the  right  of  inheritance.'* 

In  some  of  the  States,  illegitimate  children  take  as  heirs  from 
father  or  mother,  if  there  are  no  other  heirs  capable  inherit  in  de- 

1  1     1       i  1         -.      i  1      r       mi        fault  of  Other 

of   taking,  so  that  they  exclude  the  State  only.''     ine  heirs. 


1  Heath  v.  White,  5  Conn.  228,  282; 
Dickinson's  Appeal,  42  Conn.  491,  504  tl 
s(q.,  holding  tliat  bastards  have  inlieritable 
Mood  to  transfer  collaterally  as  well  as 
lineally;  Brown  v.  Dye,  2  Hoot,  280,  de- 
ciding that  illegitimate  children  of  the 
same  mother  may  inherit  from  each  other. 
But  the  word  "  children  "  in  tlie  statute  of 
Illinois  was  held  to  mean  lawful  children, 
and  not  to  do  away  with  the  common  law 
rule,  according  to  which  illegitimate  chil- 
dren cannot  inherit:  Blacklaws  v.  Milne, 
82  111.  505;  Orthwein  v.  Tliomas,  lo  N. 
East.  R.  564.  See,  however,  Rogers  v. 
VVeller,  5  Biss.  166,  168,  170. 

^  So  provided  in  California,  Iowa  (if  the 
paternity  be  notoriously  acknowledged, 
or  acknowledged  in  writing,  or  proved 
during  the  intestate's  lifetime  :  as  to  evi- 
dence sufficient  to  establish  notorious 
recognition  see  Blair  v.  Howell,  68  Iowa, 
6rJ),  Maine,  Michigan  (the  acknowledg- 
ment must  be  recorded  like  a  deed),  Min- 
nesota, Nebraska,  Nevada,  Tennessee, 
Vermont,  and  Wisconsin. 

The  statute  of  Vermont,  legitimating 
a  bastard  adopted  by  the  putative  father 
"  as  respects  the  father,"  is  held  not  to 
enable  such  bastard  to  inherit  by  repre- 
senting him :  SafEord  v.  Houghton,  48 
Vt.  236,  238.     In  Iowa  the  acknowledg- 


ment need  not  be  by  formal  avowal,  it 
may  be  by  letters  recognizing  him  as  a 
child  :  Crane  v.  Crane,  31  Iowa,  296,  303; 
and  tlie  birth  of  an  ilie.Lntimate  child  after 
making  a  will,  if  acknowledged  by  the 
father,  revokes  such  will :  Milburn  v. 
Milburn,  60  Iowa,  411.  A  bastard  duly 
legitimized  inherits  not  only  lineally  but 
also  collaterally  :  McKamie  v.  Baskerville, 
7  S.  W.  R.  (Tenn.)  194. 

3  In  Indiana,  if  a  man  marries  a 
woman,  although  he  then  denies  that  a 
child,  with  which  she  is  pregnant,  is  his 
own,  as  charged  by  her,  and  afterward 
cohabit  with  her,  tlie  child  is  nevertheless 
his  legitimate  heir:  Bailey  v.  Boyd,  59 
Ind.  2:i2,  298. 

i  Miller  v.  Miller,  91  N.  Y.  315,  citing 
Story,  Confl.  L.  ch.  iv. ;  Smith  v.  Kelly, 
23  Miss.  167;  Scott  i'.  Key,  11  La.  An. 
232 ;  Ross  v.  Ross,  129  Mass.  243 ;  Van 
Voorhis  c.  Brintnall,  86  N.  Y.  18 ;  Good- 
man's Trust,  Law  R.  17  Ch.  Div.  266. 
But  see  Lingen  v.  Lingen,  45  Ala.  410. 

^  As  in  Indiana,  where  an  illegitimate 
child  inherits  from  and  through  the 
mother  as  if  born  in  lawful  wedlock : 
Parks  V.  Kimes,  100  Ind.  148,  158  ;  and 
from  the  fatiier  in  default  of  legitimate 
children,  if  there  be  no  heirs  within  the 
United  States  capable  of  taking:  Louisi- 


158  PROPERTY   OF   INTESTATES.  §  75 

word  "heirs"  in  such  case  is  not  confined  to  children;  it  includes 
all  who  may  inherit  under  the  law.^ 

It  is  also  to  be  observed,  that  the  issue  of  marriages  which  are 
null  in  law  are  in  every  respect  legitimate,  and  inherit  and  trans- 
mit by  descent  as  if  born  in  lawful  wedlock.^ 

In  States  recognizing  neither  lawful  marriages  nor  property 
rights  in  slaves,  the  laws  of  descent  did  not,  of  course,  apply  to 
r    v         f    them.     A  statute  passed  after  their  emancipation,  de- 

Legitimacv  of  i  '  . 

slaves.  "  Glaring  that  children  of  colored  parents  born  before  a 
day  named  of  persons  living  together  as  man  and  wife  should  be 
legitimate  children,  with  all  the  rights  of  heirs  at  law  and  next  of 
kin  with  respect  to  the  estate  of  such  parents,  was  held,  in  North 
Carolina,  as  entitling  them  to  inherit  from  such  parents  only,  but 
not  from  any  other  person.^ 

Upon  the  death  of  a  bastard  intestate,  his  descendants  take  as 
if  he  were  legitimate.  In  most  States  his  mother,  in  default  of 
Bastard's  de-  descendants,  and  those  tracing  kinship  through  her, 
scendants         inherit  from  him.*     Where  the  statute  declares  that 

inherit  trom  ,       .   . 

I'im-  illegitimate  children  shall  be  deemed  legitimate  as  be- 

tween themselves  and  their  representatives,  and  that  their  estates 
shall  descend  accordingly  in  the  same  manner  as  if  they  had  been 
born  in  wedlock,  and,  in  case  of  death  without  issue,  to  such  i)er- 
son  as  would  inherit  if  all  such  children  were  born  in  wedlock,  it 
is  held  that  the  estate  of  such  illegitimate  dying  intestate  m  ithout 
issue  shall  descend  to  his  or  her  brothers  and  sisters  born  of  the 
body  of  the  same  mother,  and  their  representatives,  whether  legiti- 
mate or  illegitimate.^ 

In  Illinois,  by  act  of  April  9,  1872,  "  in  case  of  the  death  of  an 
illegitimate  intestate  leaving  no  child  or  descendant  of  a  child, 
the  whole  estate,  personal  and  real,  shall  descend  to  and  absolutely 
vest  in  the  widow  or  surviving  husband.'"^  The  widow  might, 
under  the  administration  law^,  renounce   the  will,  and  take  as  if 

ana,  where  natural  children  take  in  default  sota,  ^Mississippi,  Missouri,  Nebraska,  Ne- 

of    lawful   descendants,    ascendants,   col-  vada.  New  Hampshire,   North   Carolina, 

lateral  kindred,  and  husband  or  wife.  Oliio,  Rhode  Island,  Tennessee,  Vermont, 

1  Borroughs  v.  Adams.  78  Ind.  160.  Virginia,  West  Virginia,  and  Wisconsin. 

2  Dyer  r.^Brannock,  66  Mo.  391,  418.  ^  Powers  i'.  Kite,  83  N.  C.  156,  citing 

3  Tucker  v.  Bellamy,  4  S.  E  R.  34.  former   North   Carolina   cases.      See,   to 
*  So  in  Alabama,  Arkansas,  California,  similar  effect,  Southgate  v.  Annan,  31  Md. 

Colorado,  Florida,   Georgia,  Illinois;  In-     113,  115;  Estate  of  Mngee,  63  Cal.  414. 
diana,   Iowa,  Kansas,   Kentucky,   Mary-  '^  Pub.   L.   111.    1871-72,   p.  353,  §   2, 

land,    Massachusetts,    Michigan,   Minne-     pi.  3. 


§  76  ALIENS.  159 

the  husband  had  died  intestate*  Under  these  statutes  it  was 
held  that  the  widow  of  an  illegitimate  testator,  renouncing  the 
will,  took  the  testator's  entire  estate,  thus  putting  it  in  her  power 
to  render  her  husband's  will  nugatory .^ 

§  76.  Aliens.  —  It  has  already  been  shown,  in  connection  with 
the  subject  of  testamentary  Canaeity,  that  the  common  law  rule 
incapacitating  aliens  from  taking  property  by  descent  ^^,.^,^^.^^^  ^^^^_ 
lias  been  abrogated  or  largely  modified  in  England,  as  daily  i...  i)ar 

«    ,        ^  .      ,       _•    .        Q       Ti  •  to  inheritance. 

well  as  in  most  of  the  States  of  the  Union.^  It  is  un- 
necessary to  say  more  on  this  subject  now,  than  to  repeat  that 
except  in  two  or  three  of  the  States  alienism  now  constitutes  no 
insuperable  bar  to  the  right  of  inheritance  in  any  of  them,  nor 
is  the  alienism  of  an  ancestor  through  whom  the  descent  of  prop 
erty  is  claimed  allowed  to  impair  the  title.^  The  law  in  this 
respect  is  very  recent  in  several  of  the  States.^ 

1  Pub.  L.  111.  1871-72,  p.  07,  §  78  (since  respect ;  §  2860  seems  to  be  of  a  date  more 

repealed).  recent  tban  §  2260,  and  evidently  controls 

^  Evans  v.  Trice,  118  111.  593.  Tliis  the  latter,  or  ratlier,  as  appears  from  the 
construction  was  denied  by  the  minority  sections  followinfi,  repeals  it,  leaving  the 
of  the  court  (tlie  judges  standing  four  to  law  as  announced  in  the  text.  §  28G0  re- 
three),  on  the  ground,  among  others,  that  mains  in  the  Code  of  1886:  §  191-4.  As 
it  involves  an  unwarrantable  e.xercise  of  to  the  law  in  Missouri  on  this  point,  see 
power  by  the  legislature,  and  is  therefore  Sullivan  v.  Burnett,  105  U.  S.  o-)-i,  037, 
obnoxious  to  the  constitution:  Evans  v.  giving  a  history  of  it. 
Price,  dissenting  opinion,  118  111.  663.  ^  King  i'.  Wear,  53  Iowa,  07,  100;  Hall 

3  Ajite,%  19.  V-   Hall,    13  Htm,  300,   312;   Harnian    v. 

*  The  Code  of  Alabama  of  1876  con-  Ferrall,  64  N.  C.  474,  477  (the  enabling 

tains  two  inconsistent  provisions  in  this  statute  was  passed  in  1871). 


160  PROVISIONAL   ALIMONY   OF   THE   FAMILY.  §  77 

CHAPTER   IX. 

PEOVISIONAL   ALIMONY    OP   THE    FAMILY. 

S  77.    Nature   and   Office  of  Statutory  Allowances  for  the  Provits- 

ional  Support  of  the  Family.  —  It  has  already  been  noticed  that 

the  power  of  testamentary  disposition  is  limited,  in 

Paramount  '■  r-    n       ^         i       i  •    i       i 

right  of  sur-  somc  respects,  by  the  policy  of  the  law/  which  places 
to7e"mporary  Certain  rights  beyond  the  caprice  of  a  testator.  One 
alimony.  ^^  these  is  the  right  of  the  surviving  members  of  his 

family  to  the  necessary  means  of  subsistence,  raiment,  and  shelter 
during  the  period  immediately  succeeding  his  death,  which  the 
law  enforces  not  only  against  any  inconsistent  testamentary  dis- 
position, but  equally  against  creditors,  heirs,  and  distributees, 
whose  rights,  like  those  of  legatees,  are  controlled  by  and  post- 
poned to  the  provisions  made  for  the  surviving  family  in  this 

respect. 

These  provisions,  like  the  kindred  subject  of  the  homestead 
exemption  laws,  are  of  purely  American  origin.  They  owe  their 
Protection  of  existcncG  to  a  humane  and  benevolent  consideration 
the  Famiiv  a       £  ^j  g  distrcss  and  helplessness  of  widows  and  orphans 

necessity  of  '  ^ 

the  State.  ncwly  bcrcft  of  their  protector  and  supporter,  and  to 

a  wise  public  policy,  recognizing  the  true  relation  of  the  State 
to  the  Family  as  its  organic,  constituent  element.  "  The  protec- 
tion of  the  Family,''  says  Thompson  in  his  valuable  work  on 
Homesteads  and  Exemptions,  "  from  dependence  and  want,  is  the 
expressed  object  of  nearly  all  the  homestead  and  exemption  laws ; 
the  immunities  enacted  by  these  statutes  are  extended  to  this 
association  of  persons,  or  to  the  head  thereof,  for  the  benefit  of  all 
its  members."  ^  "  The  relation  of  husband  and  wife,  parent  and 
child  is  the  unit  of  civilization,  and  the  State  has  thought  to 
encourage  that  relation  by  protecting  it  from  absolute  want, 
arising  from  the  vicissitudes  of  life."^ 

The  common  law  secures  to  the  widow  her  dower,  and  to  the 
widow  and   children   their  pars   rationahilis    (corresponding   to 

1  Ante,  %&et  seq.,  §  17.  ^  Bond,  J.,  In  re  Lambson,  2  Hughes, 

2  Thomp.  Homest.  &  Ex.,  §  40.  233. 


§  77  NATUHE   OF   STATUTORY    ALLOWANCES.  161 

dower   and    distribulion    under   American    statutes),  „ 

Nosuchpro- 

but  no  provision  whatever  is  therein  found  to  meet  vision  at  com- 
tlie  exigencies  arising  immediately  upon  the  death  of 
the  head  of  a  family,  save,  perhaps,  the  clause  in  Magna  Charta 
securing  to  the  widow  the  right  to  remain  in  her  husband's  capital 
mansion  for  forty  days  after  liis  death,  within  which  time  her 
dower  was  to  be  assigned,^  These  rights  arc  secured  to  the 
widow  to  an  equal  extent  in  all  the  States,  aside  from  the  subject 
now  under  consideration,  and  in  addition  to  the  exemption  from 
execution  of  certain  property  necessary  to  the  family  during  the 
lifetime  of  the  husband,  and  which  are  in  many  instances  con- 
tinued in  favor  of  the  widow  or  minor  children  upon  his  death."- 

These  provisions  for  the  protection  of  the  family  constitute  no 
gift  to  the  widow  to  repair  any  seeming  injustice  in  the  Statute  of 
Distribution  or  the  will  of  her  husband,  but  are  in-  Temporary 
tended  to  furnish  to  her  and  her  minor  children  the  P^JS'ug^" 
means  of  temporary  maintenance  out  of  the  estate  of  family. 
the  deceased  husband  until  their  interest  therein  can  be  set  out 
to  them,'^  not  only  protecting  so  much  against  the  claims  of  credi- 
tors,* but  also  against  the  heirs,  or  distributees,  legatees,  and  per- 
sonal representatives.     Depending  wholly  upon  the  enactments  of 
the  several  legislatures  they  vary  greatly,  not  only  in  varying  in 
magnitude    but   also  as   to  the  mode  in  which  this  "nT method  of 
bounty  is  secured  to  them ;  intended,  in  some  cases,  appiicauon. 
"merely  to  furnish  the  family  with  a  reasonahle  maintenance  for 
a  few  weeks,  and  with  some  articles  of  necessary  furniture  when 
not  otherwise  provided  with  them,  .  .  .  temporary  in  its  nature 
and  personal  in  its  character,  conferring  no  absolute  or  contingent 
right  of  property  which  can  survive  her  or  go  to  her  personal 
representatives"  ;^  in  others,  assuming  such  liberal  proportions  as 

1  Thomp.    Homest.    &    Ex.,    §  933  ;  pressly  authorize   creditors  to   intorrer^t 

Hubbard  v.  Wood,  15  N.  H.  74,  78.  leg.acies,   distributive   shares,    and  del'N 

-  As  by  express  enactment  in  Califor-  payable  out  of  the  estate  of  a  decea.^eil 

nia,    Colorado,    Kansas,  Mississippi,  Ne-  person  by  garnishment  process,  it  is  held 

vada,   Oregon,    Khode   Island,   Virginia,  that  the  allowance  to  the  widow  cannot 

and  perhaps  other  States.     But  in  so  far  be   so   attached:    Barnum   i'.    Bougliton, 

as  these  exemptions  extend  to  the  head  supra.     See  also  the  case  of  Livingston 

of  a  family,  they  protect  the  widow  and  r.  Langley,  3  S.  E.  K.  (Ga.)  009,  giving 

minor  children  in  all  of  them.  the  widow  preference  to  a  fund  claimed 

^  Foster  v.  Foster,  36  N.  H.  437,  438  ;  by  her  husband's  sureties. 
Woodbury  v.  Woodbury,  58  N.  H.  44;  ^  Adams  i-.   Adams,  10  Met.   (Mass.) 

Barnum  v.  Bougliton,  55  Conn.  117.  170,  171. 

*  In  Connecticut,  whose  statutes  ex- 
VOL.  I.  —  11 


162  PROVISIONAL   ALIMONY   OF   THE   FAMILY.  §  78 

not  only  to  effectually  protect  a  family  against  sudden  impoverish- 
ment by  reason  of  the  death  of  its  natural  provider,  but  seriously 
affecting  the  interests  of  creditors.^  In  Missouri  the  property  so 
allowed  vests  in  the  widow  or  children  immediately  upon  the 
death  of  the  husband  or  father,  without  formal  election,^  may 
be  assigned  by  the  widow  by  deed  with  or  without  consideration,^ 
and  passes  to  her  administrator,  as  against  the  heirs  or  husband's 
creditors.*  It  is  no  part  of  her  distributive  share  as  next  of  kin, 
unless  so  expressed  by  the  statute.^ 

§  78.  statutory  Provisions  touching  the  Extent  and  Mode  of  the 
Allowance.  —  In  some  of  the  States,  the  quantum  of  the  allowance 
Temporary  ^^  ^^^  fixed  by  statutc,  but  left  to  the  discretion  of  the 
allowance         probatc  court.     In  California  ^  and  Nevada '''  the  pro- 

before  grant         ^  _  ^ 

of  letters.  bate  judge  is  required  to  make  a  temporary  allowance 
for  the  reasonable  support  of  the  widow  and  minor  children  be- 
fore the  grant  of  letters ;  and  upon  the  return  of  the  inventory, 
or  subsequently,  he  is  to  set  apart  for  the  use  of  the  family  all 
personal  property  which  is  by  law  exempt  from  execution  or 
attachment  against  a  debtor ;  and  if  this  is  not  sufficient  for  the 
Allowance  in  maintenance  of  the  family,  to  make  such  additional 
probatrcourt.  reasonable  allowance  out  of  the  estate  as  may  be 
necessary  during  the  progress  of  the  settlement,  —  not 
longer,  in  case  of  insolvent  estates,  than  one  year.  In  Connecti- 
cut,^ lowa,^  Maine,^*^  Massachusetts,^!  New  Hampsliire,!^  Texas,!^ 
and  Vermont,!*  the  entire  amount  to  which  the  widow  or  minor 
children,  or  both,  are  thus  entitled,  is  determined  by  the  judge  of 
probate,  except  that  in  all  cases  the  wearing  apparel,!^  and  gener- 

1  In  California,  Kansas,  Missouri,  and  i"  Rev.  St.  1883,  p.  552,  §  21  et  seq. 
some   other  States,  very    generous   pro-  "  Gen.  St.  1882,  ch.  135,  §§  1,  2,  p.  770. 
vision  is  made  for  the  surviving  family.  In  cases  where  there  is  no  widow,  but 
See  post,  §  78.  minor  children,  the  allowance  is  limited 

2  Hastings  v.  Meyer,  21  Mo.  519.  not  to  exceed  $50  each. 

8  McFarland  v.  Baze,  24  Mo.  156.  i^  Gen.  L.  1878,  p.  474,  %\et  seq. 

4  Cummings  v.  Cummings,  51  Mo  261,  i^  Rev.  St.  1888,  §  1984. 
263.  "  Gen.  St.  1880,  §  2109. 

5  Hence  a  bill  of  sale  by  the  widow  ^^  What  constitutes  wearing  apparel, 
of  "  all  the  personal  property  owned  by  or  rather  what  does  not  constitute  such, 
her  as  heir  at  law  of  her  husband  "  does  has  been  judicially  decided  in  Vermont, 
not  include  such  allowance  :  Estate  of  Neither  the  watch,  chain,  key,  and  seals, 
Moore,  57  Cal.  446,  447.  nor  the  finger-ring  usually   worn  by   a 

8  Civ.  Proc,  §  1464.  person  when  living,  nor    the  sword  and 

7  Comp.  L.  187.3,  §  602.  sword-belt  which  an  officer  in  the  United 

8  Gen.  St.  1888,  §  604.  States  navy  wore  in  accordance  with  the 
^  Code,  1886,  §  2375,  regulations  of  the  Navy  Department,  can 


§  78  STATUTORY   PROVISIONS.  163 

ally  the  ornaments  of  tlie  family,  are  reserved  to  the  widow.  In 
j\Iicliigan,^  Nchraska,^  North  Carolina,^  Oregon,*  Rhode  Ishind,'^ 
and  Wisconsin,^  this  discretion  of  the  court  is  limited  to  determine 
the  amount  necessary  for  sustenance,  while  other  articles  of  per- 
sonal property  are  secured  to  the  widow  or  family  expressly,  or 
permitted  to  be  selected  by  tliem.  In  Mississippi^  and  Missouri ^ 
the  articles  allowed  as  the  absolute  property  of  the  widow  are 
specifically  enumerated,  including  provisions  for  the  support  of 
the  family  for  one  year ;  but  if  such  provisions  are  not  on  hand, 
the  probate  court,  or  in  Mississippi  the  commissioners  appointed  to 
set  out  the  widow's  share,  are  to  make  a  reasonable  appropria- 
tion out  of  the  assets  to  supply  the  deficiency.  In  Virginia,^  the 
"  dead  victuals"  arc  reserved  for  the  use  of  the  family  if  desired 
by  any  member  thereof,  and  live  stock  may  be  killed  Commissionera 
for  that  purpose  before  the  sale.  In  Georgia^*'  and  setapan'asuf- 
Tennessee  ^^  commissioners  are  app3inted  to  set  apart  the  "upp^i-tot 
a  sufficiencj^  of  the  estate  for  the  support  of  the  widow  ^^^  family. 
and  her  family  for  twelve  months,  in  property  or  money.  In 
other  States  the  amount  and  specific  articles  of  property  allowed 
to  the  widow  and  family,  and  in  several  instances  to  the  surviving 
husband  and  his  minor  children,  are  distinctly  enumerated,  vary- 
ing in  kind,  amount,  and  nature  of  the  title  by  which  it  is  held. 
In  Alabama  ^2  ^^g  statute  allows  certain  articles  enumerated  abso- 
lutely, in  addition  to  which  the  widow  or  guardian  of  infant  heirs 
may  select  other  property  to  the  amount  of  one  thousand  dollars, 
which,  however,  if  the  estate  is  solvent,  must  be  accounted  for 
as  so  much  received  on  account  of  distribution  or  legacy.  In 
Pennsylvania  the  widow  or  children  of  any  decedent  are  allowed 
to  retain  §5300  worth  of  assets  of  the  estate ;  but  this  statute  is 
held  to  be  founded  on  the  father's  liability  for  the  support  of  his 

be    considered   wearing    apparel   within  2  Qgn.  St.  1873,  p.  300,  §  176;  Comp. 

tlie  meaning  of  tlie  statute  securing  the  St.  1887,  eh.  23,  §  176. 

wearing  apparel   of    a   decetlcnt   to   liis  ^  Code,  1883,  p.  811,  §  2116  et  seq. 

widow  :    Sawyer  r.   Sawyer,  28  Vt.  249,  «  Code,  1887,  §  1126. 

Redfield,  C.  J.,  dissenting    except  as  to  ^  Pub.  St.  1882,  p.  482,  §  4. 

tlie  watch.     But  otherwise  of  the  epau-  6  Rgv.  St.  1878,  §  3935. 

lets,  wliich  are  part  of  the  coat,  and  a  '  Code,  1880,  §  1270. 

bosom    pin,    which   is    attached    to   the  ^  Rev.  St.  1879,  §  106. 

shirt,   and   must   go    witli   the   principal  ^  Code,  1887,  §  2640. 

(p.  252).    Eings  and  jewelry  are  not  wear-  "  Code,  1882,  §§  2571-2578. 

ing  apparel :  Frazier  v.  Barnum,  19  N.  J.  u  Code,  1884,  §  3125  et  seq. 

Eq.  310,  318.  12  Code,  1886.  §§  2545,  2517;   Huntef 

1  2  How.  St.  18S2,  §  5847.  v.  Law,  68  Ala.  365,  367. 


164  PROVISIONAL    ALIMONY   OF   THE   FAMILY.  §  79 

family,  and  does  not  extend  to  the  children  of  a  woman  deceased.^ 
In  Maryland,  prior  to  1884,  a  widow  was  entitled  to  select  prop- 
erty to  the  amonnt  of  $150,  out  of  any  personal  property  inven- 
toried ;  but  by  act  of  the  legislature  her  selection  is  now  confined 
to  the  kitchen  and  household  furniture.^ 

§  79.  Rules  governing  the  Amount  of  the  Allow^auce.  —  In  exer- 
cising the  discretion  vested  in  probate  courts  and  in  commis- 
Discretion  of  ^ioners  appointed  by  them  to  designate  and  set  apart 
probate  court     the  property  and  money  allowed  for  the  provisional 

controlled  by  .  „ 

appellate  mamtenaiice  of  the  family,  they  are  not  to  proceed  in 

an  arbitrary  or  capricious  manner,  setting  up  their 
own  fanciful  views  or  unsupported  individual  opinions  as  the  cri- 
terion by  which  to  measure  the  rights  of  the  family  on  the  one 
hand,  and  of  creditors,  heirs,  or  legatees  on  the  other;  but  they 
exercise  a  sound  judicial  discretion,  subject  to  be  reviewed  and 
corrected  on  appeal.^  It  is  the  duty  of  the  appellate  court  in 
most  States  to  hear  and  determine  the  question  anew,  and  to 
make  such  allowance  in  lieu  of  the  allowance  made  by  the  probate 
court  as  to  it  may  appear  reasonable  and  proper,  as  if  constitut- 
ing, pro  hac  vice,  the  probate  court.*  Unless,  however,  the  award 
made  in  the  probate  court  be  appealed  from,  it  is  conclusive,  and 
cannot  he  questioned  collaterally,  however  disproportionate  it 
may  seem  or  be.^ 

Where  the  whole  question  as  to  the  magnitude  of  the  allowance, 
as  well  as  the  time  during  which  it  is  to  apply,  is  left  undeter- 
mined by  the  statute,  it  should  be  remembered  that  the  policy 
a.nd  intention  of  the  law  is  to  furnish  a  temporary  supply  for  the 
wants  of  the  family  while  the  estate  is  in  process  of  administra- 
tion, until  the  debts  are  paid  and  the  distributive  shares  of  the 
widow  and  heirs  are  ascertained,  or,  in  case  of  insolvency,  to  fur- 
nish support  to  the  helpless  until  new  arrangements  can  be  made 
to  enable  them  to  gain  a  livelihood.^ 

1  King's  Appeal,  84  Pa.  St.  345.  Boyden  v.  "Ward,  38  Vt.  628 ;   Drew   v. 

2  Crow  V.  Hubard,  62  Md.  560.  Cordon,   13   Allen,    120 ;   Richardson    v. 

3  Piper  V.  Piper,  34  N.  H.  563,  566 ;  Merrill.  32  Vt.  27.  In  Iowa,  an  aliow- 
Applegate  v.  Cameron,  2  Bradf.  119,  re-  ance  of  -"JSOO  was  reduced  to  .$350  after 
vising  and  correcting  the  action  of  com-  the  expiration  of  the  year  for  which  it 
missioners  setting  out  property  to  the  was  made ;  but  the  appellate  court  ruled 
widow.  that,   if   th.e   widow    had   expended    the 

*  Cummings  v.  Allen,  34  N.  H.  194,  amount  allowed,  she  could  not  be  held 

103 ;  Oilman  r.  Oilman,  53  Me.  184,  191 ;  to  account  for  it :  Harshman  v.  Slonaker, 

Washburn  v.  Washburn,  10  Pick.  374.  53  Iowa,  467,  468. 

5  Litchfield  V.  Cudworth,  15  Pick.  23 ;  ^  Washburn  v.  Washburn,  supra. 


§  79  RULES   GOVERNING  THE   ALLOWANCE.  165 

111  determining  the  amount  necessary  for  such  purpose,  regard 
may  be  had  to  the  state  of  the  health,  age,  and  habits  of  the 
widow,  the  number  and  age  of  the  children  iramedi-  c^n.j^g,.,^;,,,,^ 
atelv  dependent  upon  her,  as  well  as  the  value  of  the  governing  tiie 

•'  '  ^  T        M        •  1  ii  allowance. 

estate  and  of  her  dower  and  distributive  snare  tliere- 
in.^  It  may  also  be  considered  whether  or  not  she  is  accustomed 
to  hard  labor,  and  thus  enabled  to  support  herself,  or  if  by  reas(jn 
of  ill  health  or  other  circumstances  she  is  unable  to  do  so.  A 
smaller  amount  will  be  proper  in  the  former  case  than  that  whicli 
may  be  necessary  in  the  latter.^  When  the  statute  fixes  the  time 
for  the  duration  of  which  the  allowance  is  to  be  made,  it  must,  of 
course,  be  sufficient  to  secure  the  reasonable  comfort  ^^^^^^^  ^j 
of  the  family  during  the  whole  of  such  period,  if  used  the  family  to 

1)6  SGCUrCQ. 

with  ordinary  prudence  and  economy.  If  the  estate 
is  large,  apparently  solvent,  and  the  allowance  merely  an  antici- 
pation of  the  widow's  distributive  share,  a  more  liberal  allowance 
will  be  justified  than  where  it  is  small  or  insolvent;  and  what 
would  be  a  reasonable  allowance  for  one  accustomed  to  privation 
and  labor  might  be  very  unreasonable  for  one  raised  in  affluence.^ 
The  discretion  of  the  probate  iudge  has  been  held  to  „  ,  ^   .  , 

^        _  do  frobate  jiulge 

include  the  power  of  refusing  an  allowance  altogether,  may  refuse 

-,.    .  ,.      ,  .p  allowance. 

where  the  condition  of  the  wife  as  to  separate  prop- 
erty of  her  own,  or  the  amount  of  her  distributive  share  in  the 
estate,  or  what  she  may  realize  from  her  dower  in  the  real  estate, 
renders  such  an  allowance  unnecessary,  or  the  more  pressing 
necessities  of  the  heirs  or  legatees  would  make  it  unjust.^  In 
several  States,  the  statute  expressly  vests  in  the  probate  court  the 
power  to  refuse  an  allowance  altogether;^  but  in  Vermont,  where 

1  Biiffum  V.  Sparhawk,  20  N.  H.  81,  be   made   if  deemed  necessary,  and    may 

84  ;    Duncan    v.    Eaton.  17  N.    H.   441 ;  when  made  subsequently  be  diminislie.l 

Ma'thes  v.  Bennett,  21  N.  H.  188.  or  increased  :    Code,  1886,  §§  2375,  2377  ; 

•-'  Brown  v.  Hodgdon,  31   Me.  65,  70;  in  Michigan,  if  the  provision  made  by  a 

Washburn  v.  Washburn,  10  Pick.  374.  testator  be  insufficient :    How.  St.  1882, 

3  Thomps.  on  Homest.,  §  048.  §;J814:    in  Neva<la,  if   the  widow  have 

*  Hollenbeck  v.  Pixlev,  3  Gray,  521,  sufficient    maintenance    from    her    own 

524  ;  Kersey  v.  Bailey,  52*  Me.  198.     But  property,  the  allowance  is  to  be  made  in 

the  ground"  upon  which  the   decision  in  favor  of  minor  children :  Comp.  L.  1873, 

this  case  is  based  addresses  itself  rather  §  009.     In   Maine  and  New  Hampshire, 

to   the   question   whether   the    applicant  tlie    allowance   is   likewise   conditioned, 

was   really  the  widow  of   the   decedent  that  the  testator  make  no  adequate  pro- 

witiiin  the  provisions  of  the  statute.  —  a  vision  by  will,  or  that  the  widow  waive 

question  very  different  from  tliat  of  the  such  provision,  or  applies  to  intestate  or 

proper  exercise  of  a  legal  discretion.  insolvent  testate  estates. 

'^  So  in  Iowa,  the  allowance  is  only  to 


166  PROVISIONAL   ALIMONY    OF    THE   FAMILY.  §  80 

the  statute  provides  for  such  reasonable  allowance  as  the  probate 
court  shall  deem  necessary,  it  is  held  that  the  discretion  relates 
only  to  the  quantum  of  the  allowance,  and  that  he  cannot  refuse 
it  altogether.^ 

It  may  not  be  superfluous  to  remark,  in  connection  with  the 
amount  allowable  to  the  widow,  that  this  is,  generally,  determined 
by  the  law  in  force  at  the  time  of  the  husband's  death,  but  that, 
as  in  similar  collisions  between  the  rights  of  creditors  and  others, 
the  rights  of  creditors  cannot  be  impaired  by  subsequent  legisla- 
tion ;  consequently,  the  surviving  widow's  claim  is  determined,  as 
to  the  debts  of  the  husband,  by  the  law  in  force  at  the  time  they 
were  contracted,  and  cannot  be  enlarged  by  later  enactments.^ 

§  80.  To  what  Extent  Liberality  should  govern  the  Court.  — 
The  tendency  of  courts  has  generally  been  to  give  full  effect  and 
realization  to  the  humane  and  enlightened  policy  which 
siruedwith  dictated  these  enactments,  by  construing  their  provis- 
iiberaiity.  .^^^^  .^^  ^j^^  ^^^^^  Spirit  of  liberality  and  consideration. 

Not  so  as  to  make  them  a  cloak  to  cover  up  a  substantial  invasion 
of  the  rights  of  creditors,  but  so  as  to  resolve  all  reasonably 
doubtful  questions  in  favor  of  the  widow  and  children.^  Thus, 
where  the  statute  extended  this  allowance  to  "the  widow  and 
children  of  any  deceased  person,"  it  was  held  that  the  widow  was 
entitled  whether  there  were  children  or  a  child,  or  not;*  and 
whether  the  testator  bequeathed  property  to  her  in  his  will  or 
not,^  and  that  the  allowance  may  be  a  sum  of  money  in  lieu  of 
articles  of  provision,  although  the  testator  may  have  left  an  ample 
supply  of  provisions  for  her  use,*^  and  whether  the  estate  is  solvent 
or  insolvent.7  Where  the  statute  gave  the  right  of  election  to  a 
widow  for  whom  a  testator  had  provided  in  his  will,  and  a  testator 
provided  that  "  she  shall  have  her  dower  out  of  my  estate  in  the 

1  Sawyer  v.  Sawyer,  28  Vt.  245.     In  *  Sawyer  v.  Sawyer,  28  Vt.  245. 

this  case,  an  allowance  of  $500  out  of  an  5  McReary  v.  Robinson,  12  Sm.  &  M. 

estate  to  which  the  brother  and  sister  of  318. 

the  intestate  were  heirs  was  affirmed  to  ^  Nelson  v.  Smith,  12  Sm.  &  M.  662. 

a   widow   shown  to  be  in  possession  of  "It  is  intended  as  a  humane  provision 

a  pension  of  $240  per  annum  from  the  for   the  widow  and  her  children,   wlien 

United  States,  and  hving  with  a  wealthy  she  is  presumed  to  be  left  in  a  condition 

father,   who  would  not,  it  was   argued,  in  which  slie   is  unable  to  provide   for 

charge  her  for  her  board.     See  further  herself":  Turner  v.  Turner,  30  Miss.  428, 

on  this  point,  post,  §  87.  431. 

2  Bell  V.  Hall,  76  Ala.  546.  ^  Loury    v.   Herbert,    25    Miss.    101. 

3  Thorn ps.  on  Homest.,  §  936.  Post,  §  83. 


§  80  EXTENT    OF    L1BP:UAL1TY.  167 

same  manner  she  would  be  entilled  to  if  this  will  had  not  been 
made,"  it  was  held  that  the  widow  had  the  right  to  claim  the 
provision  made  for  her  by  law,  upon  waiving  her  claim  under  the 
will.^  In  construing  a  statute  giving  to  the  widow  such  beds, 
bedsteads,  bedding,  and  household  and  kitchen  furniture  "as  may 
be  necessary  for  herself  and  family,  and  provisions  for  a  year  for 
herself  and  family,"  the  court  say  :  "It  cannot  be  supposed  that 
the  legislature,  when  it  used  tlic  words  '  necessary  furniture '  and 
'  provisions  for  a  year,'  designed  to  use  the  words  in  a  rigid  and 
unbending  sense,  to  be  construed  in  all  cases  without  reference 
to  the  circumstances  of  the  parties.  If  that  were  so,  we  should 
be  obliged  to  say  that  many  articles  of  furniture  to  be  found  in 
all  comfortable  houses  were  not  absolutely  indispensable,  and 
that  the  provisions  for  a  year  might  be  reduced  to  a  certain 
amount  of  bacon  and  corn  meal.  ...  So,  too,  in  regard  to  the 
word  family.  .  .  .  We  are  of  opinion  that  the  legislature  intended, 
by  the  word  family,  to  include  such  persons  as  constituted  the 
family  of  the  deceased  at  the  time  of  his  death,  whether  servants, 
or  children  who  had  attained  their  majority.  ...  It  was  the 
design  of  the  legislature  to  furnish  the  necessary  sustenance  for 
such  household  for  one  year  after  the  death  of  the  husband,  and 
to  enable  the  widow  to  keep  what  death  had  spared  of  her  domes- 
tic circle  unbroken  during  that  time,  notwithstanding  the  loss  of 
her  husband.  This  is  the  humane  construction,  and  is  most  con- 
sistent with  the  kindly  and  liberal  spirit  which  marks  all  our 
legislation  in  regard  to  widows."  '^ 

It  has  been  held  in  New  York,  that  this  allowance  is  not  limited 
to  cases  where  the  deceased  was  a  resident  of  the  State  in  which 
the  assets  are  administered  ;  ^  but  the  current  of  au-  „. ,        . 

'  Willows  of 

thorities   is  otherwise.*     Expressions   in   this   spirit,  non-resident 

•     !••  !•  p  •  pn/v  decedents  take 

indicating  the  desire  of  courts  to  give  full  eftect  to  their  allowance 
the  liberal  enactments  of  the  legislature,  are  met  with  u,e  lex 
in  numerous  cases,  although  instances  are  not  lacking    ""**''' "' 

1  Crane  v.  Crane,  17  Pick.  422,  427.  haliitrint  or  not ;  and  so  long  as  the  legis- 

2  Strawn  v.  Strawn,  53  III.  26-3,  274.  lature  liave  not  confined  the  benefit  of 
See  also  Sanderlin  v.  Sanderlin,  1  Swan,  this  beneficent  provision,  it  is  liard  to 
441  ;  Cheney  v.  Cheney,  73  Ga.  06.  find  any  reason  for  narrowing  the  chari- 

5  Kapp    V.    Public    Administrator,    2  ties   of    the   law   by  judicial  interpreta- 

Bradf.  258.     Says  the  Surrogate  :  "  The  tion  "  :  p.  260  of  the  opinion, 
benevolent    design  of  the    statute  hns  a  ■*  Pos/,  §  89. 

subject,  whether  the  deceased  was  an  in- 


1G8  PKOVISIONAL   ALIMONY   OF   THE   FAMILY.  §  81 

in  which  these  laws  have  been  construed  with  technical  strictness. 
This  subject  is  again  referred  to  in  connection  with  the  separate 
property  of  the  widow.^ 

§  81.  Cases  illustrative  of  the  Amount  of  AUo-w^ance  deemed 
Reasonable.  —  It  is  obvious,  that,  while  statutes  with  respect  to 
the  widow's  awards  should  be  liberally  construed,  yet  the  allow- 
ances should  be  witliin  the  bounds  of  reason,  and  the  construction 
given  them  should  be  reasonable.''^  It  may  be  of  assistance  to  wid- 
ows, executors,  and  administrators,  and  to  attorneys  and  courts, 
to  collate  some  of  the  cases  illustrative  of  what  appellate  courts 
deem  reasonable,  and  what  unreasonable  allowances,  in  tlie  method 
observed  by  Mr.  Thompson,  in  his  valuable  Treatise  on  Home- 
steads and  Exemptions.^  Thus  it  was  held  in  a  late  Illinois  case,^ 
that  the  court  would  not  be  justified  in  approving  the  report  of 
commissioners  showing  on  its  face  the  attempt  to  force  results, 
and  to  make  up  to  the  widow  an  amount  not  warranted  by  a 
proper  valuation  of  the  property  allowed  her  by  the  statute.  In 
this  case  the  deceased  left  an  estate  in  personalty  of  over 
$135,000  in  value  ;  the  commissioners  appraised  the  personalty 
secured  by  statute  to  the  widow  at  1806.50,  and  estimated  the 
amount  to  be  allowed  her  at  17,075,  which  award  was  rejected  by 
the  county  court  to  whom  the  report  was  made ;  whereupon  the 
widow,  administratrix,  appealed  to  the  circuit  court,  and  asked 
leave  to  substitute  a  new  estimate  of  the  commissioners,  awarding 
her  $6,629,  which  the  circuit  court  refused,  and  affirmed  the 
action  of  the  county  court  in  rejecting  the  original  report.  On 
appeal  to  the  appellate  court,  the  action  of  the  circuit  was  con- 
firmed in  both  respects,  on  the  ground  that,  whether  the  circuit 
had  power  to  act  upon  a  new  report  from  the  commissioners  or 
not,  the  new  report  must  be  rejected  as  well  as  the  original  one, 
as  being  unreasonable  and  excessive. 

Several  cases  from  New  Hampshire  indicate  the  unwillingness 
of  its  court  of  last  resort  to  allow  undue  partiality  to  be  shown  to 
the  widow,  at  the  cost  of  either  creditors,  children,  or  collateral 
distributees.  Thus,  where  an  estate  amounted  to  12,250,  the 
debts  to  8575,  and  there  were  no  lineal  descendants,  an  allowance 
of  $600  to  the  widow  was  on  appeal  cut  down  to  $200.^  Where 
the  whole  estate  was  worth  $11,000,  and  that  out  of  which  the 

1  Po!^f,  §  87.  3  §  f^-'>2. 

2  Boyer  v.  Boyer,  21  111.  App.  534,  537.  "»  Foster  i:  Foster,  36  N.  H.  437. 


§  81  ILLUSTRATIVE   CASES.  169 

widow  was  entitled  to  dower  $2,000,  an  allowance  of  $2,000  was 
on  appeal  reduced  to  $300.'  Out  of  an  estate  worth  ^25,000, 
there  being  no  debts  except  voluntary  bonds  to  two  sons,  dis- 
puted, and  without  valuable  consideration,  the  land  assigned  as 
dower  yielding  a  net  income  of  $200  per  year,  $1,250  allowed 
bv  the  probate  court  was  reduced  to  $750.^  So  in  an  insolvent 
estate,  amounting  to  $(3,400,  in  which  the  widow  had  been  allowed 
$000,  and  her  dower  was  worth  $643,  besides  owning  a  house  in 
her  own  right  worth  $566,  a  further  allowance  was  held  unrea- 
sonable,*^ and  set  aside. 

In  Massachusetts  an  allowance  of  $895,  beside  her  wearing 
apparel,  was  deemed  reasonable  for  a  widow  of  "  elevated  quality 
and  degree."  (Her  husband  had  been  sheriff  of  the  county  at  the 
time  of  his  death,  and  for  many  years  a  major-general  of  militia, 
"  an  office  of  much  distinction  and  trust.")  *  In  another  case, 
where  the  real  estate  amounted  to  $4,000,  the  personal  estate  to 
$6,000,  and  the  only  heir  was  the  intestate's  father,  an  allowance 
of  $3,000  was  cut  down  to  $1,000,  considering  that  the  widow 
would  get  $500  on  distribution,  as  the  one-fourth  of  the  residue 
after  paying  debts.^ 

In  Maine  the  widows  seem  to  fare  better.  Out  of  an  estate  in 
which  the  personalty  was  insufficient  to  pay  the  debts,  leaving 
$700  to  be  paid  out  of  the  proceeds  of  real  estate  valued  at  $2,000, 
tlie  widow  (of  a  packet  master  sailing  between  Eastport  and 
Belfast)  was  allowed  $500.^  In  another  instance,  the  widow  of 
one  whose  estate  amounted  to  between  $500,000  and  $600,000, 
was  allowed  by  the  probate  judge  $75,000,  which  sum,  on  appeal 
by  one  of  the  executors,  was  by  the  appellate  court  increased  to 
$85,000.' 

More  liberal  views  are  entertained  in  some  other  States.  Thus 
it  is  held  in  Georgia  that  "  the  wise  and  liberal  policy  of  our 
legislation  certainly  designed  to  include  in  the  year's  support 
something  more  than  a  bare  subsistence,  with  clothes  and  shelter, 

1  Duncan  v.  Eaton,  17  N.  H.  441.  ^  Brown  v.  Hodgdon,  31  Me.  65,  70. 

2  Kingmtin  r.  Kingman,  31  N.  H.  182,  "  Oilman  v.  Oilman,  53  Me.  184,  191. 
191.                                                                        It  sliould  lie  remembered,  however,  tliat 

8  Cummings  v.  Allen,  34  N.  H.   194,  under  the  statutes  of  Maine  (Kev.  St.  ch. 

197.  (55,  §  21,  eh.  75,  §  9)   tiiis  allowance  was 

•*  Crane  v.  Crane,  17  Pick.  422,  428.  not  a  temporary  one,  but  constituted  the 

^  Washburn   v.    Washburn,   10   Pick,  whole  of  her  interest  in  the  personalty 

374.  of  the  estate. 


170  PROVISIONAL   ALIMONY    OF    THE   FAMILY.  §  82 

and  [jei-liaps  the  means  of  locomotion  for  the  family."  Hence  it 
is  error,  in  passing  upon  the  report  of  the  commissioners  setting- 
aside  the  year's  support,  to  reject  evidence  to  show  the  amount 
of  outlay  made  by  the  decedent  in  the  maintenance  and  education 
of  his  adult  children,  the  gifts  made  to  them  upon  attaining  their 
majority,  and  the  advances  made  to  some  of  them,  for  which  they 
were  not  required  to  account.^  An  allowance  of  $5,000  made  by 
the  ordinary,  in  addition  to  certain  household  and  kitchen  furni- 
ture and  other  personal  property,  was  on  aj^peal  to  the  Superior 
Court  reduced  by  the  verdict  of  a  jury  to  $2,600  ;  and  it  was  held 
by  the  Supreme  Court  that  the  rejection  of  the  evidence  above 
alluded  to,  and  of  the  expense  of  keeping  minors  at  school  and 
college,  unduly  restricted  the  jury,  and  a  new  trial  was  ordered.^ 

In  Illinois  the  "  family  "  for  which  provision  is  to  be  made  by 
the  allowance  is  held  to  include  not  only  the  widow  and  minor 
children,  but  also  adult  children  living  with  her,  a  woman  who 
had  been  i-aised  in  the  family,  the  superintendent  of  the  farm 
under  the  widow's  control,  the  housekeeper,  cook,  and  other 
house  servants.  An  allowance  of  $400  for  beds  and  bedding,  of 
$1,600  for  furniture,  and  of  $1,642  for  a  year's  provisions,  was 
held  reasonable  out  of  an  estate  valued  at  $500,000.^ 

§  82.  The  Allowance  in  Testate  Estates.  —  It  will  appear  from 
the  cases  already  cited,'*  that,  as  a  general  rule,  the  widow  and 
Unless  directed  children  are  the  recipients  of  this  bounty,  whether  the 
tifere1s"no  husbaud  or  father  died  testate  or  intestate.^  It  is 
difference  ^^^{(j  j^  somc  States,  that,  where  there  is  a  will  making 

whether  the  '.  '  .  ° 

estate  is  testate  provisiou  for  the  widow,  she  is  not  entitled  to  the 
allowance  unless  she  renounce  the  provisions  of  the 
will.^  This  denial  rests  upon  the  doctrine  that  a  person  cannot 
take  under  a  will  and  also  claim  rights  contradictory  to  or  in  con- 
flict with  it,'  and  must  necessarily  follow  in  every  case  where  this 

1  Cheney  v.  Cheney,  73  Ga  66,  70.  St.  31  ;  Ruffin,  C.  J.,  in  Kimball  v.  Deni- 

2  Clieney  v.  Cheney,  supra ;  see  cases  ing,  5  Ired.  L.  418,  420 ;  Mclieary  v. 
cited  by  the  court,  p.  71,  to  sliow  that  such  Robinson,  12  Sm.  &  M.  318;  Nelson  v. 
claims  are  favorably  considered  by  courts.  Wilson,  61  Ind.  255. 

3  Strawn  v.  Strawn,  53  111.  263,  272.  ^  Turner  v.  Turner,  supra  ;  Brown  v. 
See  Boyer  v.  Boyer,  21  III.  App.  534,  Hodgdon,  31  Me.  65,  68 ;  Crane  v.  Crane, 
cited  ante,  p.  168.  17  Pick.  422,  426;  Estate  of  McManus, 

*  Ante,  §  80.  14  Phila.  660. 

5  Thomps.  on  Homest.,  §  937;  Baker  "^  Little  v.  Birdwell,  27  Tex.  688,  691  ; 

V.  Baker,  57   Wis.  382;    Turner  v.  Tur-  Pearson    v.    Darrington,    32    Ala.   227; 

ner,  30  Miss.  428  ;   Turner  v.  Fisher,  4  Langley  v.  Mayhew,  107  Ind.   198,  crit- 

Sneed,  209 ;  Compiler  v.  Compher,  25  Pa.  icisiug  prior  Indiana  cases. 


§  82  THE    ALLOWANCE    IN    TESTATE    ESTATES.  171 

doctrine  is  ai){)licable,  as  in  one  of  the  cases  cited,  where  the 
widow  had  actually  enjoyed  and  consumed  the  property  provided 
bv  will  for  her  year's  supi)ort,  or  where  the  provision  in  the  w  ill 
is  sulhcient  to  meet  the  immediate  wants  of  the  family  ;  it  has 
also  been  denied  in  cases  where,  by  reason  of  sufficient  separate 
proi)erty  of  the  widow,  or  for  any  other  reason,  such  wants  do  not 
exist.i  3iit  where  the  testamentary  provision  is  not  exi)ressed  or 
clearly  intended  to  be  in  lieu  of  the  statutory  allowance,  the 
requirement  to  renounce  the  will  seems  to  ignore  and  defeat  the 
very  object  and  intent  of  the  law,  which  is  "  merely  to  furnish  her 
with  a  temporary  allowance,  by  which  she  can  support  herself 
and  dependent  children  until  her  interest  in  the  estate  can  be  set 
out  to  her";  and  the  more  rational  view  seems  to  be  that  she  is 
entitled  to  the  allowance  in  addition  to  the  provision  made  for 
her  in  the  will,^  and  that  the  husband  cannot  deprive  The  iuisi)and 

11  •  1     1    r         1       Ai  4-    <-     cannot  Ijv  liis 

his  Widow  of  the  allowance  provided  lor  by  tne  stat-  ,viii  deprive  his 
ute  by  any  provision  in  his  will.^  In  Missouri  the  ''|!j\",J'„ry  '^''*^ 
allowance  to  the  widow  is  expressed  by  statute  to  allowances. 
be  "  in  addition  to  "dower,"  a  part  of  which  (property  selected  by 
her  not  exceeding  the  appraised  value  of  8400)  is  to  be  deducted 
from  her  distributive  share  in  the  estate  (also  given  under  the 
dower  act  and  not  under  the  Statute  of  Descents  and  Distributions) 
if  in  excess  of  $400,  but  is  not  liable  for  debts.*  Under  this  stat- 
ute it  is  held  that  this  allowance  to  the  widow  is  no  part  of  her 
dower  proper,  although  in  the  nature  of  dower  in  being  absolute 
against  creditors  and  the  right  of  the  husband  to  dispose  of  by 
will;^  she  is  therefore  entitled  to  such  allowance,  whether  she 

^  Leavenworth  ?;.  Marshall,  19  Conn,  former  decisions  to  same  effect;  Smith 

408,  418.     So  where  a  widow,  under  the  v.  Smith,  7fi  Ind.  236.     But  see  Lantrtey 

law  of  Louisiana,  accepted  a  succession  i\  Mayhew,  107  Lid.  198,  205,  criticising 

"  purely  and  simply,"  the  widow  was  not  prior  Indiana  cases. 

entitled  to  the  §1,000  allowed  out  of  her  »  Collier  v.  Collier,  .3  Oh.  St.  .%9,  .375; 

hushand's  estate,  because,  by  accepting  Ward  v.  Wolf,  5(5  Iowa,  465;   Baker  v. 

the  succession,  it  ceased  to  exist;  she  be-  Baker,  57  Wis.  382,  .392. 
came    the   owner   of    the   property,  and  ■*  Rev.  St.  §§  lOo-llO. 

lience   liable   for   its   debts :    Claudel   v.  ^  It  is  "  for  the  immediate  sustenance 

Palao,  28  La.  An.  872.  of  the  widow,  as  is  dower  for  her  support 

^  Meech  v.  Weston,  33  Vt.  561 ;    Delt-  during  life  ;  yet  it  differs  from  it  in  that 

zer  V.  Scheuster,  37  III.  301 ;    Loring  r.  it  is  made  from  the  personalty  owned  at 

Craft,  16  Ind.  110;  Vedder  i-.  Sa.xton,  46  his  death,  and  it  becomes  her  absolute 

Barb.  188  :  Williams  ?•.  Williams,  5  Gray,  property":    Bryant   v.  McCune,  49   Mo. 

24;  Bane  r.  Wick,  14  Oh.  St.  505;  White-  546,  647. 
man  v.  Swem,  71  Ind.  530,  534,  affirming 


172 


PROVISIONAL    ALIMONY    OF    THE   FAMILY. 


83 


stands  by  the  husband's  will  or  rejects  it  to  take  under  the  law ;  ^ 
and  unless  a  contrary  intention  plainly  appear  from  the  language 
of  the  will,  any  bequest  to  her  will  be  deemed  to  be  in  addition  to, 
and  not  in  lieu  of,  such  allowance.^ 

§  83.    The  Allowance  with  respect  to  the  Solvency  or  Insolvency 
of  the  Estate.  —  The  right  of  the  widow  and  children  is  paramount 
The  allowance  to   that   of   Creditors,   and    hence   does    not    depend 
entupouThe"    upou  the  solvcucy  or  insolvency  of  the  estate.     In 
eslltr^"^'^''  many,  if  not  most,  of  the  States,  provision  is  made  by 
statute  that  where  the  estate  does   not  exceed  in  value  a  cer- 
Estatesnot        tain  Specified  amount,^  or  the  amount  to  which  the 
widow  or  children  are  entitled  absolutely,  no  adminis- 
tration shall  be  necessary,  but  all  the  property  of  the 
estate  is  to  be  assigned  and  turned  over  to  the  widow, 
or  if  no  widow,  to  the  child ren.*     It  is  held  in  Illi- 
nois ^  that  in  such  case  the  widow  must  pay  the  funeral  expenses, 
and  in  Indiana*^  the  funeral  expenses  and  expenses  of  last  illness, 
out  of  the  assets  so  received  by  her.     In  some  States  the  allow- 
ance is  to  be  deducted  from  the  widow's  distriTjutive  share,  if  the 
estate  is  found  to  be  solvent,'  but  generally  it  is  left  to  the  widow, 
either  by  express  enactment  or  implication,  in  addition  to  her  dis- 
tributive share  if  the  estate  is  solvent,*  and  is  in  no  case  liable  for 
debts  of  the  decedent.     It  follows  that  the  property  is  secured  to 


exceeding  in 
value  the 
amount 
al'owed  to  the 
widow  not  ne- 
cessary to  be 
administered. 


1  Register  v.  Hensley,  70  Mo.  189,  195. 

2  In  re  Klostermann,  6  Mo.  App.  314, 
316  ;  Schoeneich  v.  Reed,  8  Mo.  App 
.3.56,  362;  Hasenritter  v.  Hasenritter,  77 
Mo.  162. 

3  In  California,  if  under  $1500.  prop- 
erty all  goes  to  widow  ;  if  tinder  J^SOOO, 
in  the  discretion  of  tlie  probate  court : 
2  Civ.  Proc.  §  1469.  In  Georgia,  if  un- 
der S500-  Code,  §2.571  and  following; 
Stewart  v  Stewart,  74  Ga.  355.  In  Indi- 
ana, $500-  Rev.  St.  1881,  §  2419  et  .^rrj. 
In  Michigan,  $150-  2  How.  St.  1882, 
§  5847.  In  Nevada,  $500  Comp.  L. 
1873,  §  608.  In  Vermont,  3300-  Gen. 
St.  1880,  §  2114  In  Wisconsin,  $150: 
Rev.  St.  1878,  §  3935.     See  post,  p.  436. 

4  So  in  Alabama:  Code,  1876;  Ar- 
kansas :  Dig.  St.  1884,  §  67  ;  Illinois  : 
St.  &  C.  Rev.  St.  1885,  p.  214 ;  Missouri : 
Rev.  St.  1879,  §  2  ,  and  Oregon  .  Gen. 
L.  1887,  §  1129. 


5  McCord  V  McKinley,  92  111.  11. 

e  Green  v.  Weaver,  78  Ind.  494. 

■7  So  in  Alabama,  Florida,  Maryland 
(property  selected  by  the  widow  not  ex- 
ceeding $150  in  value,  and  if  she  have 
no  children  $75  in  value,  is  to  be  de- 
ducted out  of  her  distributive  share,  unless 
the  decedent  left  real  estate  exceeding 
$1000  in  value),  Missouri  (where  the  $400 
in  property  to  be  selected  by  the  widow 
is  to  be  deducted  out  of  her  distributive 
sliare  in  the  estate  if  there  be  any,  but 
not  the  other  property  or  money  allowed), 
and  New  Hampshire. 

8  In  Arkansas,  if  the  estate  is  solvent, 
the  widow  may  select  property  not  ex- 
ceeding the  value  of  $150  in  addition  to 
the  amount  allowed  her  without  refer- 
ence to  solvency :  Dig.  St.  1884,  §  63. 
In  California  (2  Civ.  Proc.  §  1466),  Michi- 
gan (How.  St.  §  5847),  Nebraska  (Gen. 
St.  1887,  cli.  23,  §  176),  Nevada  (Comp. 


§84 


HOW    AFFECTED    BY    MARRIAGE    SETTLEMENTS. 


178 


the  widow  and  childi-en  irrespective  of  the  vahie  of  the  estate.' 
In  Iowa  it  was  held  tliat  where  it  is  ascertained  that  an  estate  is 
insolvent,  and  that  after  the  final  settlement  there  will  remain  no 
sum  whatever  in  the  hands  of  executors  for  the  widow  or  chil- 
dren, there  is  no  provision  of  law  that  would  justify  an  order 
directing  the  executors  to  pay  a  ])ortion  of  the  assets  to  the  widow 
for  her  support  and  that  of  the  minor  children.'-^ 

§  84.  How  affected  by  Marriage  Settlements.  —  It  is  obvious 
that  property  which  may  be  the  subject  of  a  marriage  contract, 
whether  ante  or  post  nuptial,  is  no  less  under  the  con-  Waiver  of 

-^  ^  1  .    1  allowance  for 

trol  and  operation  of  law  than  property  which  passes  support  of 
by  descent  or  under  a  will,  and  it  has  been  lield  that  ^ntl-iuptid 
the  existence  of  a  marriage  contract,  by  which  the  ^'^'^Jl^'fpuuiic 
widow  had  released  all   claims  upon  her  husband's  P^''cy- 
estate,  is  no  defence  to  her  claim  for  an  allowance  out  of  his 
estate  for  necessaries.^     In  New  York  it  was  held,  that  where  the 
provision  in  an  ante-nuptial  agreement  was   an   annuity  to  the 
widow  for  life,  in  lieu  of  dower  or  any  portion  of  his  estate,  and 


L.  1873,  §  604),  and  Wisconsin  (Rev.  St. 
1878,  §  3935),  the  allowance  for  the  support 
is  limited  in  cases  of  insolvent  estates  to 
one  year.  In  Georgia  the  appraisers  are 
directed,  in  estimating  the  amount  to  be 
set  apart  for  the  support  of  the  family, 
to  take  into  account,  among  other  things, 
the  solvency  or  insolvency  of  the  estate. 
In  Maine  (Code,  1883,  p.  55'2)  and  Oregon 
(Gen.  L.  1887,  §  1128)  the  court  may 
make  an  additional  allowance  if  the  es- 
tate turn  out  to  be  solvent,  or  additional 
property  be  discovered.  In  Indiana  it  is 
iield  that  the  widow  takes  the  allowance 
in  addition  to  her  distributive  share  : 
Cheek  v.  Wilson,  7  Ind.  354. 

1  Curd  V.  Curd,  9  Humph.  171  ;  John- 
son V.  Corbett,  11  Paige,  265,  27(5;  Com- 
pher  V.  Compher,  25  Pa.  St.  31  ;  Hill  r. 
Hill,  32  Pa.  St.  511 ;  Pride  v.  Watson,  7 
Heisk.  232,  234  ;  Hopkins  v.  Long,  9  Ga. 
201  ;  McNulty  v.  Lewis,  8  Sm.  &  M.  520; 
Loury  v.  Herbert,  25  Miss.  101  ;  Mason 
V.  O'Brien,  42  Miss.  420,427;  Silcox  v. 
Nelson,  1  Ga.  Dec.  24 ;  Hays  v.  Buffing- 
ton,  2  Ind.  369. 

2  In  re  Hieschler,  13  Iowa,  597.  It 
does  not  appear  from  the  report  of  this 
case  whether  the  widow  and  children 
had  received  anything  for  their  support 


or  not,  and  hence  it  does  not  establish 
the  proposition  that  neither  a  widow  nor 
minor  children  are  entitled  to  an  allow- 
ance for  their  temporary  support. 

8  Blackinton  v.  Blackinton,  110  Mass. 
461.  But  the  ground  upon  which  this 
decision  is  based  is  the  purely  techuical 
one,  that  the  executors'  defence  to  the 
widow's  claim  cannot  be  availed  of  in 
the  probate  court,  for  the  want  of  equity 
powers  to  try  the  validity  of  the  con- 
tract or  give  effect  to  its  provisions,  and 
that  on  appeal  the  supreme  court  of 
probate  can  exercise  no  general  equity 
powers,  but  is  bound  to  make  only  such 
decree  as  the  probate  court  should  have 
made.  It  leaves  the  question  itself  un- 
touched and  unanswered,  and  rests  upon 
the  reasons  given  in  an  earlier  case,  Sul- 
lings  V.  Richmond,  5  Allen,  187,  191,— 
which  allowed  a  widow  her  distributive 
share  in  an  estate  notwithstanding  her 
anfe-niipfial  agreement  to  accept  cer'ain 
provisions  therein  in  the  place  of,  and  as 
a  substitute  for,  her  doicer  and  everi/  other 
chv'm  by  her  upon  his  estate,  —  to  wit, 
that  the  probate  court  had  no  authority 
to  enforce  a  marri.ige  contract.  The 
case  of  TarbplI  v.  Tarbell.  referred  to  in  a 
note,  was  decided  on  the  same  principle. 


174  PROVISIONAL   ALIMONY   OF   THE   FAMILY,  §  84 

the  husband  by  will  gave  her  an  annuity  during  her  widowhood 
only,  he  has  failed  to  perform  upon  his  part,  and  tlie  widow  is  not 
precluded  from  claiming  the  property  allowed  to  her  by  statute.^ 
The  true  principle,  however,  seems  to  be,  that  these  laws  rest  upon 
a  sound  public  policy,  and  that  contracts  running  contrary  thereto 
are  for  that  reason  and  to  that  extent  void.  It  is  the  policy  of 
the  law  to  preserve,  as  far  as  possible,  the  integrity  and  continuity 
of  the  family,  and  to  protect  it  even  against  the  thoughtlessness 
and  improvidence  of  men  and  women.  In  this  view  the  home- 
stead laws,  and  laws  exempting  property  from  sale  under  execu- 
tion and  attachment,  are  enacted,  and  courts  have  decided  con- 
tracts waiving  this  exemption  prospectively  to  be  void,  as  being 
contrary  to  public  policy .^  The  principle  has  a  stronger  appli- 
cation to  widows  and  orphans  when  the  provision  made  for 
them  by  law  is  threatened  or  assailed  by  a  marriage  contract. 
It  was  accordingly  decided  in  Illinois,  that  the  special  allow- 
ance made  by  statute  for  the  widow  of  a  deceased  person  is 
as  much  for  the  advantage  of  the  children  of  the  deceased  as 
for  his  widow,  and  cannot  be  affected  by  an  ante-nuptial  con- 
tract. "  The  law,"  says  Mr.  Justice  Scott,  "  also  charges  the 
husband's  estate  with  the  support  of  his  widow  and  his  chil- 
dren residing  with  her,  for  the  period  of  one  year  after  his  death, 
at  least  to  the  extent  of  certain  articles  of  property,  or  their 
value  in  money.  This  latter  right  is  one  created  by  positive  law, 
and  attaches  in  all  cases,  whether  there  is  sufficient  property  or 
not  to  pay  the  debts  of  the  decedent.  Being  a  statutory  right, 
it  is  one  of  which  the  husband  cannot  deprive  his  wife  and  chil- 
dren, any  more  than  he  can  relieve  himself  of  his  obligation  to 
support  them  while  living.  It  is  in  no  case  affected  by  the  widow 
renouncing  or  failing  to  renounce  the  benefit  of  the  provisions 
made  for  her  in  the  will  of  her  husband,  or  otherwise.  Our  laws 
on  this  subject  have  always  been  liberal,  but  the  tendency  of  more 
recent  legislation  is  to  enlarge,  rather  than  to  abridge,  the  bene- 
ficial provisions  in  this  regard.  ...  It  is  an  absurd  conclusion 
that  any  ante-nuptial  agreement  can  deprive  the  children  of  the 
means  of  support,  in  their  tender  years,  which  the  law  has  given. 
.  .  .  We  are  at  a  loss  to  understand  how  this  humane  provision  of 

1  Sheldon  v.  Bliss,  8  N.  Y  31.  See  Thomp.  on  Homest.,  §  441,  and  cases 

-  So  in  New  York,  Iowa,  Kentucky,     there  quoted  and  cited. 
Wisconsin,    Tennessee,    and    Louisiana. 


§  85       HOW  AFFECTED  BY  PREFERRED  DEBTS.        175 

the  law  for  the  family  of  a  deceased  party  can  be  affected  by  an 
ante-nuptial  contract,  however  broad  and  comprehensive  in  its 
terras."^  It  is  to  be  observed,  however,  that  this  right  on  the 
part  of  a  widow  to  repudiate  an  executory  marriage  contract  no 
longer  exists  after  she  has  deliberately  accepted  its  terms  ;  in 
other  words,  she  cannot  both  execute  and  repudiate  the  contract,^ 
and  the  children  are  bound  by  her  election.  So  it  seems  that, 
where  there  are  no  children,  the  widow  has  no  election  unless 
given  by  statute.^ 

§  85.    How    affected    by   Liens   or    Preferred   Debts  of  the    Dece- 
dent.—  In  some  cases  it  is  held  that  the  wife  is  entitled  to  her 
year's  allowance  out  of  tier  husband's  estate  in  prefer-  widow  entitled 
ence  to  a  lien  of  a  mortgage  given  by  the  deceased  aUowancrin 
husband  in  his  lifetime.*     So,  in  Texas,  it  takes  pre-  iJ[ortgagee/°  * 
cedence  over  the  lien  of  a  judgment  rendered  against  ^^  judgment 
the  decedent  in  his   lifetime,"  and  in  Pennsylvania,  creditor. 
since  the  exemption  act  of  1850,  the  widow's  claim  is  good  against 
all  debts  which  were  not  liens  prior  to  that  act;^  no 

'  •  No  lien  has 

lien,  whether  that  of  a  judgment  creditor  of  the  de-  precedence  ex- 
ceased  who  had  loaned  him  money  to  pay  for  a  house 

1  Phelps  V.  Phelps,  72  111.  545.     But     widow's    award  cannot  be   waived,    the 
in    Pennsylvania,  where  a  husband  and     waiver  is  simply  void. 

wife  entered  into  a  written  agreement  to  '^  Thomp.   on   Homest.,  §042;   Scott, 

separate,   whereby   each   for   a  valuable  J.,  in  Phelps  r.  Phelps,  72  111.  54.5,  550; 

consideration  relinquished  whatever  mar-  to  similar   effect,   Speidel's  Ap[)eal,  107 

ital   rights    either    might    have    in    the  Pa.  St.  18. 

other's  estate,  and  such  separation  was  *  Cole  i'.  Elfe,  23  Ga.  235.  The  statute 
actual  and  continuous,  it  was  held  that  under  which  this  decision  was  rendered 
after  his  death  the  wife  could  not  claim  provides  for  an  allowance  out  of  the  estate 
the  exemption  allowed,  as  a  member  of  immediately  after  the  death  of  the  testator 
the  family  :  Speidel's  Appeal,  107  Pa.  or  mtestate,  "  notwithstanding  any  debts, 
St.  18.  In  Missouri  it  is  held  that  an  dues,  or  obligations  of  said  testator  or  in- 
ante-nuptial  agreement  between  husband  testate,"  and  the  court  decided,  in  conso- 
and  wife,  that,  upon  the  death  of  either,  nance  with  numerous  previous  decisions 
the  other  should  claim  no  interest  in  the  of  that  State,  that  "  a  mortgage  in  this 
estate  of  the  deceased,  is  not  binding  on  State  is  nothing  more  than  a  security  for 
the  widow  in  a  suit  by  her  for  the  statu-  the  payment  of  a  debt;  and  that  the  title 
tory  allowance,  where  she  has  received  to  the  mortgaged  property  remains  in  the 
nothing  as  a  consideration  for  the  al-  mortgagor,  until  foreclosure  and  sale,  in 
leged  agreement:  Mowser  v.  Mowser,  the  manner  pointed  out  by  statute."  The 
87  Mo.  437.  principle    announced    was    subsequently 

2  Weaver  v.  Weaver,  109  III.  225,  234,  affirmed    in    Elfe   v.   Cole,   26   Ga.   107, 
citing  Brenner  r.  Gauch,  85  111.  368,  and  Benning,  J.,  dissenting. 

Cowdrey  r.  Hitchcock.  103111.  2G2,  272,  to  &  Giddings   i'.    Crosby,    24  Tex.    205, 

same  effect.     But  Walker  and  Scott,  .JJ.,  299. 

dissent,    holding   that     Phelps  v.  Phelps  6  Hill   r.    Hill,   42   Pa.    St.    108,   204: 

establishes    as   law    that   the    statutory  Baldy's  Appeal,  40  Pa.  St.  328.    It  seems 


176  PEOVISIONAL   ALIMONY   OF   THE   FAMILY.  §  85 

and  lot  of  which  he  died  seised,^  or  of  a  mechanic  on  the  house 
which  he  erected,  or  any  lien  whatever  save  that  for  unpaid  pur- 
chase money,  takes  precedence  of  the  allowance  to  the  widow.^ 
But  in  a  late  case  it  was  held  that  any  mortgage,  whether  for 
purchase  money  or  not,  takes  precedence  of  the  widow's  claim, 
hut  not  the  lien  of  a  judgment.^  In  Alabama,  while  her  claim  is 
paramount  to  the  rights  of  the  personal  representative  for  the 
general  purposes  of  administration,  and  to  preferred  debts  of  the 
estate,  it  does  not  override  liens  created  by  the  law,  or  by  act  of 
the  deceased  husband.^  In  California  the  order  setting  out  a  par- 
cel of  land  for  the  support  of  the  minor  children  of  a  decedent 
does  not  divest  the  lien  of  a  mortgage  given  by  the  decedent  to 
secure  the  purchase  money,^  In  Iowa  the  widow's  claim  has 
preference  over  a  creditor  who  furnished  materials  for  the  erection 
of  a  house,  and  omitted  to  obtain  a  mechanic's  lien  by  reason  of 
the  administrator's  assurance  that  it  was  not  necessary.^  Since 
the  property  allowed  to  the  widow  is  not,  generally,  treated  as 
assets  of  the  estate,  it  would  seem  to  follow  that  the  widow  is 
entitled  to  it  in  preference  to  creditors  of  any  kind,  whether  for 
ordinary  debts  of  the  decedent,  expenses  of  last  illness,  or  even 
funeral  expenses  and  charges  for  settling  the  estate  ; "  but  in 
Illinois,  where  she  might  take  certain  enumerated  articles,  or  in 
lieu  thereof  money,  it  was  held  that,  if  she  elected  to  take  money, 
she  made  herself  a  general  creditor  of  the  estate,  remitted  to  take 
her  share  with  other  creditors.^ 

tliat   in   these    cases  no  lien  existed  on  ^  Kauffman's  Appeal,  112  Pa.  St.  645, 

any  specific  property,  and  irom  the  Ian-  citing  numerous  authorities, 
guage  of  Thompson,  J  ,  in  tlie  latter  case  *  Loeb  v.  Richardson,  74  Ala.  311,  314. 

it  is  to  be  inferred  tliat  the  creditor  had  ^  Fairbanks  v.  Robinson,  64  Cal.  250. 

obtained  no  judgment  before   the  intes-  ••  Estate  of  Dennis,  67  Iowa,  110. 

tate's  death.     But  see  tiie  cases  infra.  ^  Kingsbury    v.    Wilmartli,   2    Allen, 

1  Nottes's  Appeal,  4.5  Pa.  St.  361.  810. 

2  Hildebrand's  Appeal,  39  Pa.  St.  133.  »  Crnce  v.  Crnce,  21  111.  46.  In  this 
"  It  is  remarkable,"  says  Woodward,  case  there  were  debts  of  the  first,  second, 
rendering  the  opinion  in  this  case,  "  that  third,  and  fourth  class,  —  tiie  tlnrd  class 
the  .  .  .  statute  under  which  the  widow  being  trust  money,  in  which  were  allowed 
claims  saj's  nothing  about  liens  except  and  placed  the  claims  of  two  wards  whose 
liens  for  the  purchase  money  of  real  money  the  intestate  had  in  hand  at  the 
estate.  These  are  not  to  be  impaired  by  time  of  his  death,  and  the  fourth  general 
the  widow's  election  of  real  estate.  .  .  .  creditors.  The  court  held,  that  the  widow 
And  expressio  umus  exclusio  alterins.  Be-  was  a  general  creditor,  and  that,  as  there 
cause  no  other  lien  was  mentioned  or  were  not  sufficient  personal  assets  to  pay 
referred  to  by  the  legislature,  they  meant  the  third  class,  the  real  estate  might  be 
that  no  other  should  prevail  against  the  sold,  out  of  the  proceeds  of  whicii  the 
widow,"  claim  of  the  widow  might  be  satisfied,  if 


§  86 


WHEN    THE    ALLOWANCE   TAKES    EFFECT. 


177 


§86.  When  the  Allowance  takes  Effect.  —  'I'liO  right  of  the 
widow  to  the  money  or  property  allowed  for  her  and  her  family's 
temporary  support  is  held  in  some  States  to  be  abso-  ui^ht  vests  on 
lute,  and  to  vest  at  once  upon  the  husband's  death. ^  iiu>i)aiHr.s 

'  *  .  (leatli,  or  on 

In  others,  it  is  held  to  vest  upon  confirmation  or  coniirmation by 
allowance  by  the  probate  court,^  or  selection  by  the 
widow  or  guardian  of  minor  children,^  and  may  then  be  recovered 
l)y  her  personal  representative;*  and  if  the  allowance  to  her  is  of 
such  articles  as  she  may  have  clioscn,  and  if  they  are  sold,  al- 
though by  her  consent,  but  without  a  waiver  of  her  claim  to  an 
allowance,  she  is  entitled  to  the  avails  thereof.^  The  probate 
court  lias  no  power  to  authorize  an  executor  to  sell  the  articles 
provided  by  law  for  the  support  of  the  widow  and  her  family,  and 
she  may,  notwithstanding  such  order,  maintain  trespass  against 
the  executor,^  or  trover,'''  or  hold  him  responsible  as  a  wrongdoer, 
but  not  on  his  bond.^     The  absolute  title  of  the  widow,  and,  in  the 


sufficient  money  remained  after  paying 
tlie  third  class  in  full. 

1  So  held  in  Kellogg  v.  Graves,  5  Ind. 
509;  Brown  v.  Joiner,  3  S.  E.  R.  (Ga.) 
IJ7  ;  s.  c.  5  S.  E.  R.  (Ga.)  407  ;  Hastings 
r.  Myers,  21  Mo.  519;  McFarland  v. 
Baze,  24  Mo.  156,  holding  that  it  passes 
at  once  upon  the  luishand's  death,  dis- 
charged of  the  lien  of  tlie  debts,  and  may 
be  assigned  by  her  by  deed  even  without 
consideration  ;  Cummings  i\  Cumniings, 
51  Mo.  2(51  ;  Johnson  /•.  Johnson,  41  Vt. 
4()7,  deducing  this  consequence  from  the 
peculiarity  of  the  statute,  wliicli  authorizes 
the  probate  court  to  assign  to  the  widow 
her  sliare  of  tiie  estate,  not  less  than  one 
tliird  after  payment  of  debts,  &c.,  and 
holding  that  her  share  is  governed  by  the 
same  rules  as  the  share  which  passes  to  the 
heir;  Whitley  v.  Stephenson,  38  Miss.  113; 
York  V.  York,  38  111.  522,  526 ;  Bratney 
V.  Curry,  83  Ind.  399;  Bayless  i\  Bayless, 
4  Cold  w.  359,  361.  And  tiie  failure  to  file 
an  inventory  and  appraisement  of  tiie 
personal  pro[)erty,  as  required  by  law, 
does  not  deprive  the  widow  of  this  right: 
Adkinson  v.  Breeding,  56  Iowa,  26,  27 ; 
Hardin  v.  Pulley,  79  Ala.  381. 

2  Runyan's  Appeal,  27  Pa.  St.  121; 
Kauffman's  Appeal,  112  Pa.  St.  645. 

'^  Mitcham  v.  Moore,  73  Ala.  542,  545. 
In   such   case,  no  title  to  any  particular 
property  vests  until  the  selection  is  made: 
VOL.  I.  — 12 


Little  V.  McPherson,  76  Ala.  552  ;  though 
the  rniht  to  the  exemption  vests  immedi- 
ately on  the  death  of  the  decedent :  Har- 
din V.  Pulley,  79  Ala.  381,  386.  In  Indi- 
ana the  widow's  right  to  take  property  at 
the  appraised  value,  not  exceeding  $500, 
continues  up  to  the  time  of  sale,  although 
she  has  made  a  partial  selection  before 
the  return  of  the  inventory  ;  in  such  case, 
injunction  will  lie  to  prevent  an  executor 
from  selling,  where  the  property  is  needed 
and  cannot  be  replaced  by  her :  Denny  v. 
Denny,  113  Ind  22. 

^  Dorah  v.  Dorah,  4  Oh.  St.  292. 

5  Kingsbury  y.  Wilmarih.  2  Allen,  310; 
in  Missouri,  at  any  time  before  such  pro- 
ceeds are  paid  out  for  debts,  or  in  distri- 
bution :  Rev.  St.  §  109;  but  it  cannot  be 
claimed  out  of  the  partnership  estate  of  a 
firm  of  which  her  deceased  husband  was 
a  member:  Jidian  v.  \Vrightsman,  73  Mo. 
569,  571  el  srq. ;  nor,  where  the  widow 
omitted  to  make  her  claim  before  the 
personalty  was  exhausted  in  the  pay- 
ment of  debts,  can  it  be  allowed  to  her 
out  of  the  surplus  in  the  administrator's 
hands  from  the  proceeds  of  sale  of  re.il 
estate :  Ritchey  v.  Withers,  72  Mo.  556, 
559. 

6  Carter  v.  Hinkle,  13  Ala.  529,  533. 
^  Graves  v.  Graves,  10  B.  Monr.  31. 

*  Morris  v.  Morris,  9  Heisk.  814,  822. 


178  PROVISIONAL    ALIMONY    OF    THE   FAMILY.  §  87 

absence  of  a  widow,  of  the  minor  children,  to  the  property  allowed 
them  lor  temporary  support,  follows  of  necessity  in  all  of  those 
States  in  which  it  is  assigned  to  the  widow  or  children  without 
i'ui'tlicr  administration,  when  it  appears  that  the  total  value  of  the 
estate  docs  not  exceed  the  amount  so  allowed  ;  for  the  abandon- 
ment of  further  administration  rests  solely  upon  the  ground  that 
there  is  no  property  to  administer,  because  what  property  the 
decedent  may  have  left  is  the  property  of  the  widow  or  children, 
in  which  no  other  person  has  any  interest.^  But  in  some  States 
it  is  held  that,  if  the  widow  die  before  it  is  allotted  to  her,  her 
right  thereto  abates,  and  it  cannot  be  claimed  by  her  administra- 
tor.2  "  This  allowance  for  necessaries,"  say  the  commissioners 
revising  the  statutes  of  Massachusetts,  "  is  not  inteuded  to  com- 
pensate the  widow  for  any  apparent  injustice  to  which  she  may, 
in  any  case,  be  exposed  by  the  statute  rules  of  distriljution,  or 
by  the  will  of  her  husband ;  but  merely  to  furnish  her  with  a 
reasonable  maintenance  for  a  few  weeks,  and  with  some  articles 
of  necessary  furniture,  when  she  is  not  otherwise  provided  with 
them."  It  was  held,  in  accordance  with  this  view,  that  the  death 
of  the  widow  pending  an  appeal  by  the  executors  from  an  allow- 
ance made  to  her  by  the  court  of  probate  put  an  end  to  her 
claim.^  These  decisions  have,  of  course,  no  application  to  the 
widow's  distributive  share  in  her  husband's  estate,  which  vests  in 
her  at  once  upon  the  decease  of  her  husband  and  passes  to  her 
representatives,  although  she  has  not  come  into  the  enjoyment  of 
the  property  before  her  decease  ;*  nor  where  the  property  vests  in 
the  widow  upon  the  husband's  death  .^ 

§  87.  Separate  Property  of  the  Widow  aflfecting  the  Allowance.  — 
The  object  sought  to  be  accomplished  by  the  enactment  of  these 
Separate  prop-  laws,  —  to  meet  the  actual  wants  and  necessities  of 
"^'•-i  ?M'lt  ho  the  widow  and  her  familv,  —  and  the  impossibility  of 
considerefi  in     f  raniino:  a  general  law  determining  with  accuracy  the 

ijuiflinR  the  »        (^  ^         _  •-?  ... 

discretion  of  a    circumstanccs  Constituting   such   necessity,  have   m- 

1  Ante,  §  83,  p.  172,  notes  3  and  4.  is  conclusively  estaLlislied  ■  Drew  r   Gor- 

2  Cox  I'.  Brown,  5  Ired.  L.  194;  Kim-     don,  13  Allen,  120. 

ball  V.  Deminff,  5  Ired.  L.  418;  Ex  parte  *  Johnson  r.  Jolinson,  41  Vt.  467,  469; 

Dunn,  63  N.  C.  1-37  ;  Simpson  r.  Cureton,  the  statute  fixed    the    minimum   of   the 

97  N.  C.  112,  116;  Tarbox  w.  Fisher,  50  allowance  at  not  less  than  one  third  of 

Me.  236,  2-38.  the  residue,  but  the  probate  court  must 

3  Adams  v.  Adams,  10  Met.  170.    Con-  desi<fnnte  the  amount. 

Tersely,  if  not  appealed  from,  her  right  ^  Hastings  v.  Myers,  21  Mo.  519. 


§  87  SEPARATE   PROPERTY   OF   TTTE   WIDOW.  179 

duced    the    Ico-islaturc   in  many  States  to    refer  the  .  ,     ,  , . 

'^  •'  jiKltro,  i)ut  i-i  no 

solution  of  this  (luestion  to  the  probate  court,  with  ijar  to  the  al- 
lowance unless 
no  hmitation  upon  its  discretionary  power  save  such  so  e.\|)res:^e(i  in 

general  injunctions  as  "  having  regard  to  all  the  cir- 
cumstances of  the  case,"  or  to  "  the  solvency  or  insolvency  of  the 
estate,"  "  to  make  such  reasonable  allowance  as  may  be  neces- 
sary," "  the  amount  necessary  for  sustenance,"  "  a  sufficiency  for 
the  support  of  the  widow  and  her  family  for  twelve  months,"  etc. 
"  Thouiih  no  general  rules,"  says  Shaw,  C.  J.,  "have  or  can  be 
established  regulating  this  judicial  discretion,  yet,  to  some  ex- 
tent, the  considerations  of  justice  and  expediency  on  which  the 
law  is  founded  are  i)lain  and  obvious,  and  from  them  we  may 
infer  the  intention  of  the  legislature.  The  case  supposes  the 
death  of  a  husband  leaving  a  widow.  In  the  great  majority  of  the 
cases  he  will  have  been  a  housekeeper ;  in  many,  a  parent ;  in 
many,  leaving  children  helpless  and  dependent.  In  many  cases 
the  widow,  by  the  decease  of  her  husband,  may  become  the  head 
of  a  household  and  family ;  new  duties  and  obligations  may  rest 
upon  her,  causing  an  immediate  demand  for  necessaries,  some- 
times even  before  letters  of  administration  can  be  granted.  The 
purpose  of  the  statute,  we  think,  is  to  make  a  personal  allowance 
to  her  to  meet  these  necessities.  But  no  one  of  these  circum- 
stances constitutes  a  condition  to  this  allowance,  or  a  decisive 
test  of  its  fitness.  The  parties  may  not  have  been  housekeepers, 
or  even  living  together  at  the  time  of  the  husband's  decease.  She 
may  have  been  absent  at  a  hospital  or  infirmary,  for  the  recovery 
of  her  health,  bodily  or  mental,  and  stand  in  immediate  need  ;  or 
she  may  be  on  a  visit  to  her  friends ;  or  by  mutual  consent  and 
for  their  common  benefit  they  may  seek  employment  in  different 
places,  —  as,  for  instance,  the  husband  at  sea,  the  wife  in  a  school 
or  factory.  But  these  are  all '  circumstances'  —  and  they  are  often 
numerous  and  various  —  to  be  taken  into  consideration  by  the 
judge  to  determine  whether  any  allowance  shall  be  made,  and,  if 
any,  what.  The  amount  of  money  left  by  the  husband,  and  the 
amount  of  the  separate  estate  and  means  of  the  wife,  are  also  im- 
portant circumstances  bearing  upon  the  question  of  her  necessi- 
ties." 1  The  possession  of  separate  property  by  the  widow,  coupled 
with  the  circumstance  that  there  were  no  children,  induced  the 
court  in  this  case  to  withhold  an   allowance.     So  in  Texas  the 

1  HoUenbeck  v.  Pixley,  3  Gray,  521,  525. 


180  PROVISIONAL    ALIMONY    OF   THE   FAMILY.  §  88 

allowance  is  upon  condition  that  the  widow  and  children  have 
no  adequate  separate  property,  and  hence  it  was  refused  to  chil- 
dren who  had  separate  property  of  the  value  of  lit'2,493.50.^  In 
Louisiana  it  may  be  shown,  in  derogation  of  her  claim,  that  she 
has  separate  property .^  In  New  Hampshire  the  amount  of  dower 
to  which  the  widow  is  entitled  must  be  considered  in  determining 
upon  her  allowance.'^  But  in  other  States,  and  particularly  where 
the  articles  of  property  allowed  are  enumerated  by  statute,  the 
widow  and  children  are  entitled  to  this  allowance  irrespective  of 
any  separate  property  she  or  they  may  own.  This  view  has 
never  been  questioned  in  Missouri,  and  was  held  in  Vermont,^  Ala- 
bama,^- and  Mississippi.^  In  Nevada  the  statute  provides  that 
the  amounts  allowed  for  the  support  of  the  family  go  to  the  chil- 
dren if  the  widow  have  sufficient  property  of  her  own.^ 

§  88.  What  constitutes  a  Family.  —  The  terms  used  to  designate 
the  recipients  of  this  bounty  are  commonly  "  widow,"  "  widow 
Afamii  in  the  ^^^^  children,"  or  "  widow  and  her  family."  The  num- 
popuiar"sense     {^er  of  pcrsous  Constituting  a  familv  is  sometimes  an 

is  composed  of  ^  .  , 

the  perFons  important  circumstance  in  ascertaining  the  proper 
gether  in  one  amouut  to  bc  allowed  for  their  maintenance  and  sup- 
llmier  one  head  port,  and  it  is  therefore  necessary  that  the  legal  mean- 
er manager.  j^^  q£  ^j^g  term  be  understood.  It  may  be  difficult  to 
define  the  word  accurately  and  scientifically,  so  as  to  include  all 
the  specific  significations  to  which  it  is  applied ;  but  its  popular 
meaning,  and  the  sense  in  which  it  is  used  in  the  statutes  under 
consideration,  seem  to  be  plain  and  unmistakable.  Webster's 
primary  definition  is,  "  the  collective  body  of  persons  who  live  in 
one  house,  and  under  one  head  or  manager."  This  definition  was 
adopted  by  Lindsay,  J.,  in  construing  the  constitution  of  Texas 
as  to  its  exempting  from  sale  under  execution  the  homestead  of 
the  head  of  a  family.     "  It,"  (meaning  the  homestead,)  he  says, 

1  Sloan  V.  Webb,  20  Tex.  189.  of  the  judgment  when  obtained  to  tlie  es- 

2  Succession  of  Aaron,  11  La.  An.  671.  tate  :  Succession  of  Ue  Boisblanc,  32  La. 
The  statute  provides  that  one  tiiousand  An.  17,  citing  earlier  Louisiana  cases, 
dollars  may  be  applied  to  the  relief  of  a  ^  Duncan  v.  Eaton,  17  N.  H.  441.     " 
widow  in  necessitous  circumstances;  and  *  Sawyer  v.  Sawyer,  28  Vt.  24-5,  248. 
it  is  held,  that  where  she  may  be  entitled  ^  Johnston  v.  Davenport,  42  Ala.  317  ; 
to  this  or  a  greater  sum  in  her  own  right,  Thompson  v.  Thompson,  51  Ala.  493. 
and  there  is  a  controversy  with  respect  ^  Coleman   v.   Brooke,   37    Miss.   71 ; 
thereto,  she  may  receive  tliis  sum  out  of  Whitley   v.    Stephenson,   38   Miss.    113; 
the  estate  on  giving  bond  to  refund  if  she  Wally  v.  Wally,  41  Miss.  657. 

recover,  or  l)y  assigning  an  equivalent  part  "  Comp.  L.  1873,  §  G09. 


§  88  WHAT    CONSTITUTES    A    FAMILY.  181 

•'  is  intonded  to  be  made,  by  this  constitutiunal  provision,  the  in- 
violable  sanctuary   of   the  family:    not  merely  the  head  of  the 
family,  but  of  all   its  members,  whether  consisting  of  husband, 
wife,  and  children,  or  any  other  combination  of  human  beinf2,-s, 
living  together  in  a  common  interest  and  having  a  common  object 
in  their  pursuits  and  occui)ations.    Such  a  combination  of  persons, 
so  circumstanced,  necessarily  constitutes  a  family."^     This  defi- 
nition is  in  luirniuuy  with  the  etymological  origin  of  the  word,  as 
well  as  its  present  popular  acceptation.     Webster   indicates  its 
derivation  from  the  Latin  famulus,  a  servant ;  thus  famiUa,  family, 
would  indicate  a  body  or  society  of  persons  serving  each  other, 
ministering  to  each  other's  necessities,  wants,  and  comforts.     As 
m  ancient  Rome  familia  included  all  of  the  slaves  of  a  house- 
hold, a  household  establishment,  family  servants,  domestics,  so 
the  word  family  in  modern  times  includes  not  only  parents  and 
children,  or  husband  and  wife,  but  also  brothers  and  sisters  and 
other  relations,  as  well  as  servants  and  dependants,  living  together 
in  a  iiousehold  establishment,  governed  or  controlled  by  one  per- 
son, who  is  its  head  or  manager.     In  this  sense  husband  and  wife 
constitute  a  family  ;^  a  widowed  sister  and  her  brother  for  whom 
she  keeps  house ;  ^  a  son  who  provides  for  his  widowed  mother 
and    children,  who  live  with  him;*    a  father  and   his  indigent 
daughter  with   her   three   minor   children   living  with  him;^   a 
brother,  and  an  unmarried  sister  and  two  brothers  under  twenty- 
one  years  of  age,  having  no  means  of  their  own  and  supported  by 
the  brother ;  ^  a  widow  and  the  children  of  her  deceased  husband 
by  a  former  wife  ;•  a  father  and  his  infant  son  dependent  upon 
him  for  support ;  ^  a  widow  with  five  orphan  children  of  a  deceased 
sister,  who  had  been  members  of  the  family  during  her  husband's 
lifetime,  and  two  other  children  of  a  sister  of  her  late  husband.^ 
But  the  mere  aggregation  of  individuals  who  are  not  dependent 
on  each  other  has  been  held  not  to  constitute  a  family  in  the  sense 
of  these  statutes ;  neither  an  unmarried  man,  who  has  only  ser- 
vants and  employees  living  with  him,i"  nor  a  father  having  a, family 
in  another  State,  and  accompanied  by  a  son  who  is  not  dependent 

1  Wilson  V.  Cocliran,  31  Tex.  677,  679  ;  ^  Blackwell  v.  Brougrhton,  56  Ga.  390. 
Rock  V.  Haas,  110  111.  528,  533.  «  McMnrray  v.  Shnck,  6  Bush,  111. 

2  Kitehell  1-.  Burg\vin,21  111.40,45.  '^  Sanderlin  v.  Sanderlin,  1  Swan,  441. 
8  Wade  V.  Jones,  20  Mo.  7-5.  ^  Cantrell  v.  Conner,  51  How.  Pr.  45. 

4  Connausjhton  i'.  Sands,  32  Wis.  387 ;  ^  Ex  parte  Brien,  2  Tenn.  Ch.  33, 

Marsh  v.  Lazenby,  41  Ga.  153.  ^^  Garaty  v.  Du  Bose,  5  S.  C.  493. 


182  PROVISIONAL    ALIMONY    OF   THE    FAMILY.  §   89 

upon  him,'  nor  a  sinj^le  person  living  by  himself,^  can  be  consid- 
ered as  the  head  of  a  family;  and  conversely,  the  relation  of  j)arent 
and  child,  with  its  consequent  condition  of  dependence,  constitutes 
a  family,  although  the  members  may  not  live  together  or  under 
the  same  roof.^  A  widow  is  entitled  to  the  year's  allowance  for 
herself  and  step-children  with  her  at  the  time  of  the  husband's 
death,  although  the  children  be  afterward,  without  her  consent, 
taken  away  ;  and  in  such  case  no  part  of  the  allowance  should  be 
])aid  to  the  children's  guardian.*  And  servants,  as  well  as  adult 
children,  but  not  boarders,  are  included  under  the  word  family,  in 
fixing  the  amount  of  allowance  for  a  year's  support.^  In  North 
Carolina  the  statute  defines  the  meaning  of  the  word  family,  as 
used  in  relation  to  the  rights  of  widows,  to  include  beside  the 
widow  every  child  either  of  the  deceased  or  of  his  widow,  and 
every  other  person  to  whom  the  deceased  or  widow  stood  in  place 
of  a  parent,  who  was  residing  with  the  deceased  at  the  time  of  his 
death,  and  whose  age  did  not  then  exceed  fifteen  years.^ 

It  will  appear  hereafter,  in  the  discussion  of  the  subject  of 
dower,'^  that  a  wife  against  whom  the  husband  obtains  a  decree  of 
divorce  for  her  misconduct  is  not  entitled  to  dower  in 
his  estate.  She  is  likewise  barred  of  any  right  to  the 
]>rovisions  made  by  statute  for  the  support  of  the  deceased  hus- 
band's surviving  family.^ 

§  89.  Allowance  to  the  Widow  alone.  —  Although  the  statute 
provide  this  allowance  for  "the  widow  and  children  constituting 
,,  ,  the  family  of  the  deceased,"  the  widow  alone  may 

If  there  are  no  *^  . 

minor  children,  take,  if  there  are  no  children.^  And  under  a  statute 
take  the  allow-  providing  that, "  if  there  be  no  infant  children  residing 
anceaone.  ^[W^  the  widow,  and  there  be  adult  or  infant  children 
not  residing  with  her,  the  provision  contained  in  this  section  for 
the  widow,  or  the  value  of  such  portion  thereof  as  she  receives, 
shall  be  charged  to  her  in  the  distribution,"  it  was  held  that  the 
title  to  such  allowance  vested  in  the  widow  if  there  were  no  infant 

1  Allen  V.  Manasse,  4  Ala.  554.  *  Because   she   cannot   be   considered 

2  Calhoun  v.  McLendon,  42  Ga,  405;  as  being  included  in  such  family;  Dob- 
Rock  r.  Haas,  110  111.  528,  533.  son  v.  Butler,  17  Mo.  87,  90.     See  iii/m, 

3  Sallee  v.  Waters,  17  Ala.  482.  §  89,  as  to  the  allowance  to  the  widow 
■*  Vincent  v.   Vincent,   1    Heisk.   333;     alone. 

Sanderlin  i\  Sanderlin,  1  Swan,  441.  ^  Little    v.   McPherson,  76    Ala.    552; 

5  Strawn  v.  Strawn,  53  111.  263,  274.  Sawyer  v.  Sawyer,  28  Vt.  245,  247  ;  Brown 

6  Code,  188.3,  §  2119.  v.  Brown,  33  Miss.  39. 
'  Post,  §  109. 


§89 


ALLOWANCE   TO    THE    WIDOW    ALONE. 


183 


diildrcn   fcsidiiif?  with  her,  ami  no  adult  or  infant  children  not 
residint!:  with  hcr.^     Where  the  allowance  is  to  the   ,,, 

^  Allowance  to 

widow  and  children,  it  must  be  i>aid  directly  to  the  ti..- wi.iow  and 

«    .     ,,    clulilrcn  jiav- 

widow ;  the  children  are  entitled  to  no  part  oi  it.-  ai.k  to  tiie " 
In  Iowa  the  i)roperty  allotted  to  the  widow  docs  not 
become  her  absolute  property,  but  is  to  be  used  by  lier  so  long  as 
there  is  a  family,  and  when  it  is  no  longer  needed  for  the  support 
of  such  family  it  reverts  into  the  general  assets  of  the  estate.'^ 
In  Illinois  the  widow's  award  becomes  her  absolute  property,  and 
dis])osable  as  she  sees  fit,  free  from  all  claims  by  the  children,'^ 
and  the  award  made  by  the  appraisers  cannot  be  apportioned 
between  her  and  the  children  of  decedent  by  the  probate  court.^ 
In  Mississippi  it  is  held  that,  where  the  children  do  not  live  with 
the  widow,  but  are  provided  for  by  a  guardian,  it  is  the  duty  of 
the  probate  court  to  apportion  the  amount  allowed  between  the 
widow  and  children;*^  and  where  there  is  no  child,  the  widow's 
interest  in  the  property  allotted  to  her  exempt  from  execution 
ceases  upon  her  marriage  to  another  husbandJ  A  similar  rule 
prevails  in  California.^  A  woman  who  has  been  divorced  from 
her  husband    is   self-evidently   not   entitled    to   this  ^.       ^    ., 

■^  Divorced  wife 

allowance,  or  any  share  in  the  estate  of  her  former  not  entitled  to 
husband ;  having  ceased  to  be  his  wife  during  his  life- 


1  Newman  v.  Winlock,  3  Bush,  241. 

2  Nevin's  Appeal,  47  Pa.  St.  230. 
Says  Strong,  J.  :  "  It  was  assumed  lier 
affection  for  the  cliildren  would  be  a  suf- 
ficient safeguard  for  their  interests.  In 
most  cases  the  widow  is  the  mother  of 
the  chihlren.  If  she  be  but  a  step-motiier, 
they  are  generally  safe  in  her  regard,  not 
only  for  them,  but  for  the  deceased. 
Certainly  it  would  not  tend  to  the  pro- 
motion of  domestic  harmony  to  invite 
the  children  (or  relatives  of  the  first  wife 
using  the  names  of  the  children)  to  assail 
the  character  of  their  fatlier's  widow, 
though  but  a  step-mother,  and  contest  her 
right  to  administer  a  bounty  given  by 
tlie  law  for  herself  and  her  deceased  hus- 
band's family.  Were  such  a  door  open, 
there  is  reason  to  believe  it  would  not 
unfrequcntly  call  forth  some  of  the  worst 
passions,  and  the  bounty  of  the  legisla- 
ture, instead  of  being  a  blessing,  would 
prove  a  curse."  (p.  "Joi.)  To  tiie  same 
effect  Johnson  v.  Corbett,  11  Paige,  205. 


In  Georgia  it  is  held  that  a  widow  may 
sell  land  set  apart  as  a  year's  support,  on 
behalf  of  herself  and  children,  when  this 
is  necessary  for  their  support :  Cox  r. 
Cody,  75  Ga.  175.  But  where  she  re- 
marries, sells  the  land,  and  takes  title  in 
herself  and  husband,  the  sale  is  invalid  : 
Vandigrift  v.  Potts,  72  Ga.  665. 

3  Gaskell  v.  Case,  18  Iowa,  147;  Wil- 
mington V.  Sutton,  6  Iowa,  44;  Schaffner 
I'.  Grutzmacher,  6  Iowa,  137  ;  Paup  v. 
Sylvester,  22  Iowa,  371 ;  and  she  has  no 
right  to  sell  such  property  and  appro- 
priate the  proceeds  :  Meyer  v.  Meyer,  23 
Iowa,  359. 

*  Weaver  i-.  Weaver,  109  111.  225, 
204. 

^  Scoville's  Estate,  20  111.  App.  420, 
420,  and  cases  cited. 

e  Womack  r.  Boyd,  31  Miss.  443. 

"  Carpenter  ('.  Brownlee,  38  Miss.  200. 

8  Hamilton's  Estate,  00  Cal.  576,  hold- 
ing that  the  allowance  terminates  on  re- 
marriage without  further  order  of  court. 


184  PKOVISIONAL   ALIMONY    OF   THE   FAMILY.  §  89 

time,  she  cannot  be  considered  bis  widow  after  bis  deatb.^  In 
Pennsylvania  the  same  rule  is  applied  to  a  woman  who  has  been 
Nor  one  who  divorccd  a  tnetisa  et  thoro,- to  a  woman  who  had  de- 
had  deserted      ggi^tcd  hcr  biisband  more  than  twelve  years  before  his 

her  husband  '' 

for  a  long  time.  (Jeatli  without  reasonable  cause ,3  and  to  a  wife  who 
had  left  bcr  husband  and  renounced  all  conjugal  intercourse  a 
considerable  time  before  his  death.^ 

The  rules  generally  governing  the  disposition  of  property  of  a 
decedent  situated  in  a  State  other  than  that  of  his  domicil  at  the 
„    ,  time  of  his  deatli,  demand  that  his  personal  property 

Nor  to  non-res-  '  ^  . 

ident  widows,  gball  be  disposed  of  according  to  the  law  of  his  last 
domicil,  after  payment  of  any  debts  he  may  owe  in  the  State  of 
the  rei  sitm ;  ^  and  where  the  provisions  of  the  statute  securing 
the  allowance  are  not  applicable  to  the  widow  of  a  deceased  resi- 
dent of  another  State,^  it  would  seem  that  such  allowance  must 
be  made  in  the  State  of  the  domicil,  and  satisfied  out  of  the  prop- 
erty there ;  or  if  there  are  not  sufficient  assets  there,  then  out  of 
the  assets  in  the  ancillary  administration,  upon  application  to  the 
ancillary  administrator.^  It  will  be  noticed  that  in  such  case  the 
claims  of  the  creditors  in  the  State  where  the  property  is  found 
must  take  precedence  of  such  allowance.^  In  Alabama, ^  Missouri,!^ 
and  Pennsylvania,^!  a  non-resident  widow  is  not  entitled  to  these 
provisions.  In  New  York,  however,  it  was  decided  that  even  an 
alien  widow,  who  had  never  been  in  this  country,  is  entitled  to 
this  allowance  ;  ^^  and  in  Louisiana,  where  the  widow  "  if  in  needy 
circumstances"  is  allowed  the  usufruct  of  |1,000  in  lieu  of  a  home- 

1  Dobson  V.  Butler,  17  Mo.  87,  90.  &  Medley  v.   Dunlap,   90  N.   C.  527  ; 

2  Hettrick  r.  Hettrick,  55  Pa.  St.  290.     ■post,  cli.  xvii. 

The  reason  given  is,  that  it  was  the  pur-  «  As  is  held  in  North  Carolina  :  Med- 

pose  of  the  act  to  make  an   immediate  ley  ''.  Dunlap,  s!(/M-a ;  though  she  subse- 

provision   for   the   wants   of    the   family  quently  become  a  resident  of  the  State  : 

when  the  head  of  it  is  removed  by  death,  Simpson  v.  Cureton,  97  N.  C.  112. 

and  has  no  application  where  the  family  ^  Medley    v.   Dunlap,   «?/;«•«,   p.    529; 

relation  did  not  exist.  Shannon  v.  White,  109  Mass.  146. 

3  Tozer   ;;.    Tozer,   extract   from    the  ^  Simpson   v.  Cureton,  97  N.  C.   112, 
opinion  of  Lowrie,  J.,  in  2  Am.  L.  Reg.  115. 

(1854),  510.     But  in  Missouri  the  wife's  ^  Pearson  ex  parte,  76  Ala.  521. 

abandonment  of  the  husband,  at  least  if  1°  Richardson  v.   Lewis,  21  Mo.  App. 

within  a  year  of  his  death,  will  not  bar  531,  535. 

her   right   to   the   statutory   allowance:  "Spier's    Appeal,    26    Pa.    St.    23.3; 

Mowser  r.  Mowser,  87  Mo.  437.  Coates's  Estate,  12   Phila.   171;    Piatt's 

4  Odiorne's   Appeal,   54  Pa.  St.  175.  Appeal,  80  Pa,  St.  501,  504,  citing  earlier 
So   also   where   the    separation    was   by  cases. 

contract:    Speidel's  Appeal,  107  Pa.   St.         I'Mvapp    v.    Public    Administrator,    2 
18.  Bradf.  258. 


§  90  ALLOWANCE   TO   THE   CHILDREN    ALONE.  185 

stead,  it  was  allowed  to  one  although  neither  slie  nor  the  children 
had  ever  been  domiciled  in  Louisiana.^  So  it  is  held  in  Georgia 
that  the  wife  of  a  non-resident  intestate  may  sue  there  for  lier 
year's  support,  yet  the  amount  of  the  recovery  is  controlled  by 
the  lex  domicilii.^ 

§  90.  Allowance  to  the  Children  alone.  —  As  the  widow  alone, 
if  there  arc  no  children,  may  claim  the  allowance  under  a  statute 
securing  it  to  the  widow  and  children,  so  the  children  children  alone 
alone  are  entitled  if  there  is  no  widow.  Their  right  au'^lance!  if^ 
does  not  depend  upon  the  assertion  of  it  by  the  d"  widow, 
mother. 3  And  where  the  children  of  a  former  wife  live  separate 
from  the  widow,  under  the  control  of  their  guardian,  it  is  the  duty 
of  the  probate  court  to  make  such  an  apportionment  between  the 
widow  and  the  children  as  will,  under  the  circumstances,  and 
taking  into  account  the  sum  necessary  for  the  support  of  each, 
be  just  and  equitable.*  In  such  case  the  posthumous  Posthumous 
child  of  a  decedent  is  entitled  to  a  share  in  the  sum  children. 
allowed  for  the  year's  support.^  And  so  the  widow  is  entitled  un- 
der a  statute  securing  her  certain  specific  exemptions  where  there 
were  infant  children  residing  with  her,  if  she  be  enceinte  at  the 
time  of  the  husband's  death,  and  afterwards  delivered  of  a  cliild.^ 
The  administrator  of  the  joint  estate  of  a  deceased  children  of  dif- 
husband  and  his  first  wife,  under  the  law  of  Texas,  ferent  mothers, 
cannot  appropriate  the  entire  allowance  for  one  year's  support, 
though  furnished  from  the  community  property  of  the  first  mar- 
riage, to  the  exclusive  use  of  the  children  of  the  first  marriage, 
where  there  are  also  minor  children  of  the  deceased  husband  by 
the  second  marriage  ;  and  the  fact  that  the  mother  of  the  children 
of  the  second  marriage  left  the  homestead,  and  permitted  the 
children  of  the  first  marriage  to  occupy  it,  does  not  debar  the  for- 
mer from  their  jjro  rata  interest  in  the  amount  of  the  allowance.' 
The  children  of  a  widow  who  dies  intestate,  a  house-  Children  of 
keeper  and  head  of  a  family,  are  entitled  to  the  prop-  widow.  "^ 

1  Succession  of  Christie,  20  La.  An.  »  Edwards   v.   McGee.   27    Miss.   92 ; 

o83 ;  on  the  ground  that  the  lex  domiciiii  Whitcomb  v.  Reid,  31   Miss.  5G7;  Wood- 

of  tlie  husband  controlled.  bridge  v.  Woodbridge,  TO  Ga.  733. 

■^  Mitchell  V.  Word,  64  Ga.  208,  Jack-  •»  Wom:uk  r.  Boyd,  31  Miss.  443. 

son,  J.,  dissenting,  on  the  ground  that  the  °  Womack  v.  Boyd,  xupra. 

amount  is  controlled  by  the  lex  rei  sitce,  <"'  Ilusbnnds  r.  Bullock,  1  Duv.  21. 

the  allowrince  constituting  jin  element  of  '   Harmon  i\  Bynum,  40  Tex.  324. 

the  administration :  lb.,  p.  219. 


186  PROVISIONAL   ALIMONY    OF   THE   FAMILY.  §  91 

erty  which  the  hiw  sets  apart  for  the  support  of  a  widow  and 
children,  the  same  as  if  the  intestate  were  a  Avidower.^  And 
the  children  have  such  a  substantial  interest  in  the  property 
set  apart  for  the  widow's  support,  that  a  marriage  contract,  in 
which  the  widow  had  waived  such  an  allowance,  is  held  void  as  to 
them.2  But  where  the  widow  and  minor  children  are  entitled  to 
occupy  the  ordinary  dwelling-house  and  the  messuage  thereto 
free  of  rent  for  one  year,  and  the  guardian  of  the  minor  children 
removes  them  from  her,  he  cannot  maintain  an  action  against  her 
to  recover  any  part  of  the  rental  value  of  the  premises  for  such 
Children  not  year.^  In  New  York  it  is  held  that,  while  the  widow 
entitled  out  of    |g  entitled  to  her   reasonable   sustenance  out   of  the 

till    inS0i\  6tlL 

estate.  estate  of  her  deceased  husband,  whether  solvent  or 

insolvent,  no  provision  is  made  for  the  sustenance  of  the  children 
of  an  insolvent  decedent,  the  statutory  provision  being  confined 
to  the  widow.*  The  same  is  held  to  be  the  law  in  North 
Carolina.'^ 

§  91.  Out  of  what  Property  to  be  allowed. —  Since  the  admin- 
istration of  estates  is  ordinarily  confined  to  the  personal  property 
left  by  a  decedent,  and  the  executor  or  administrator 
is  gener^iy'^^  IS  usually  his  personal  representative,  his  real  estate 
pe'rSnaTesLe  passiug  at  oucc  to  the  hcirs,  devisees,  or  dowress,  the 
""^^'  allowance  for  the  temporary  support  of  the  widow  and 

family  is  rarely  a  charge  upon  the  real  estate,  but  granted,  gener- 
ally, out  of  the  personal  property  left  by  the  decedent  only.^  Hence 
money  representing  the  proceeds  of  real  estate  cannot  be  allowed 
to  the  widow  under  this  claim,'  although  she  be  entitled  to  all  the 
personalty  of  the  estate,  leaving  the  expenses  of  administration  to 
be  deducted  out  of  the  proceeds  of  the  sale  of  real  estate,^  and 
even  if  the  personalty  had  been  specifically  devised  ;9  and  where, 
having  a  riglit  to  select,  and  she  selects  a  judgment  founded  upon 
a  promissory  note,  inventoried  among  the  effects  of  the  estate, 
which  had  been  partially  satisfied  by  a  levy  upon  real  and  per- 

1  Lesher  v.  Wirth,  14  111.  89 ;  Himes's  ^  jeily  v.  Elliott.  1  Ind.  119 ;  Paine 
Appeal  94  Pa.  St.  381,  383;  Rev.  St.  v.  Paulk,  .39  Me.  15;  Drowry  i;.  Bauer, 
M,,  I  no.  68  Mo.  155;  Hale  v.  Hale,  1  Gray,  518, 

2  Phelps  V.  Phelps,  72  111.  545.     See  523;  Motier's  Estate,  7  Mo.  App.  514. 
„„,g^  §  84.  •?  Paine  v.  Paulk,  supra;    Drowry  v. 

3'  Weaver  v.  Low,  29  Ind.  57.  Bauer,  supra;  Eitchey?;.  Withers,  72  Mo. 

4  Johnson  v.  Corbett,  11  Paige,  265.  556. 

5  C(.x  V.  Brown,  5  Ired.  L.  194  ;    Kim-  »  Brazer  v.  Dean,  15  Mass.  183. 
ball  V.  Deming,  5  Ired.  L.  418.  »  Brown  v.  Hodgdon,  31  Me.  65. 


§  91  OUT   OF    WHAT    PROPERTY   TO    BE    ALLOWED.  187 

sonal  estate,  she  is  entitled  to  the  proceeds  of  the  h'vv  upon  the 
personal  estate,  and  to  a  release  from  the  executors  of  the  un- 
redeemed real  estate.^  And  under  these  circumstances  slie  is  also 
entitled  to  the  interest  accrued  uj)on  the  note  after  the  date  of  the 
inventory  and  appraisement.^  Where  the  statute  enu-  s^rth-i^i^  spocif- 
merates  the  specific  property  to  whicJi  the  widow  is  icaiiy  aiiowx-d 

*  tr      I         •'  ^  by  statute  caii- 

entitled,  the  allowance  must  be  out  of  such  articles  not  be  suppie- 

.  (•     1        1        1  11        I       i  1       iiieiited  out  of 

actually  on  hand  at  the  time  ot  the  husband  s  death,  otiur  pn.purty 
and   no   property  or  money  not  on   hand   can  be  as- 
signed to  her.3     But  if  the  articles  so  enumerated,  or,  where  she 
has  the  right  to  select,  the  articles  so  selected,  are  sold  But  if  sold, 
by  the  executor  or  administrator,  she  is  entitled  to  the  la^eTife^^  "'*^ 
proceeds  of  the  sale.^     Where  the  statute  fails  to  des-  P>>>^eeds, 
ignate  the  specific  nature  of  the  allowance,  it  may  be  or  ?eii  them 
allotted  in  money .^     In  Illinois,  however,  it  was  held, 
that  if  the  widow  elected  to  take  her  allowance  in   money,  she 
thereby  became  a  general  creditor  of  the  estate,  and  must  share 
with  other  creditors;^  but  she  may  cause  the  real  estate  to  be 
sold  to  raise  the  necessary  money  to  pay  her  statutory  allowance;' 
and  in  Pennsylvania  her  allowance  of  $300  may  be  out  of  per- 
sonal or  real  estate,  and  remains  charged  on  the  real  estate  until 
paid.^      It  is  self-evident  that  there  can  be  no  allow-   ,„ 

r  _  Allowance  can- 

ance  to  the  widow  or  children  out  of  propertv  to  which  not  be  made  out 

p    /.        ,       , ,    a   of  property  not 

the  decedent  had  no  title  at  the  time  or  his  death.-^  beionninj^'to 
In  Illinois  it   is  held    that  there  is  nothing   in  the     "  '"^^^"'^  ' 

1  Oilman  v.  Oilman,  54  Me.  531.  120,  122;  Ex   parte  Reavis,  50  Ala.  210; 

2  Oilman  v.  Oilman,  supra,  p.  536.  Estate  of  McRoyiioUls,  61  Iowa,  585. 

3  Baylcss    v.  Bayless,  4  Coldw.  359;  ^  Cruce  v-  Cruce,  21  111.  46.     See  this 
Johnson  v.  Henry,  12  Ileisk.  606.  case,  mite,  §  85,  p.  176,  note  9. 

*  Cummings  v.  Cununings,  51  Mo.  261.  '•  Deltzer  r.  Scheuster,  37  III.  301. 
In  Oeorgia,  wiiere  the  Code  (§  2571)  is  ^  Detweiler's  Appeal,  44  Pa.  St.  243. 
construed  as  including  real  estate  in  the  ^  Summcrford  v.  Oilbert,  37  Oa.  59 ; 
property  which  may  be  set  apart  for  the  Murphy  &  Co.  v.  Knlh,  24  La.  An.  74  ; 
year's  support  of  the  family,  it  is  held  the  allowance  should  he  made  from  prop- 
that,  where  land  has  been  so  set  apart,  it  erty  belonging  unqualifiedly  to  the  estate 
may  be  sold  without  further  order  of  the  and  not  from  such  as  is  in  controversy  : 
ordinary,  and  the  proceeds  applied  for  Eddy's  Estate,  12  Phil.  17 ;  Baucus  v. 
the  support  of  the  family  :  Miller  i\  De-  Stover,  24  Hun,  109,  114.  In  Missouri 
foor,  50  Ga.  566;  Tabb  v.  Collier,  68  Oa.  the  allowance  cannot  be  made  out  of  the 
641 ;  Cleghorn  v.  Johnson,  69  Oa.  369.  estate  of  the  partnership  of  which  the  de- 
A  sale  by  the  widow  fairly  made  will  ceased  was  a  member :  Julian  r.  Wrights- 
pass  the  title  to  the  land  to  the  pur-  man,  73  Mo.  569 ;  but  in  Massachusetts  it 
chaser:  Steed  (-•.  Cruise,  70  Oa.  168,  176.  has  preference  over  partnership  creditors 

5  McNulty  1-.  Lewis.  8  Sm.  &  M.  520;  against  tlie  partnersliip  property  left  by 

Hoar,  J ,  in  Drew  v.  Oordon,  1.3  Allen,  a  deceased  surviving  partner  :   Bush   v. 


188  PROVISIDNAL   ALIMONY    OF   THE   FAMILY.  §  92 

statute  respecting  the  estates  of  deceased  persons  that  in  the 
slightest  degree  prevents  a  husband  from  disposing  of  his  per- 
sonal property  free  from  any  claim  of  his  wife,  whether  by  sale, 
gift  to  his  children,  or  otherwise,  in  his  lifetime.^  The  allowance 
is  not  to  be  made  out  of  a  grandfather's  estate,  but  only  out  of 
that  of  a  deceased  father  or  mother.^ 

§  92.    Time    and    Procedure    to  obtain  the  Allowance.  —  Where 
the  widow  herself  administers  the  estate,  she  can  easily  avail  her- 
self of  the  benefit  of  the  provisions  made  in  her  favor 

Allowance  .  ,..,  ,  j-ii 

bhoiiid  be  made  by  Simply  taking  credit  in  her  settlement  with  the 
i"o»'P  y  court  for  the  amount  allowed  her  by  order  of  court, 

the  award  of  appraisers  or  commissioners,  or  the  amount  fixed  by 
the  statute.  In  such  case,  also,  she  will  rarely  suffer  in  conse- 
quence of  neglect  or  tardiness  in  taking  the  necessary  steps  to 
secure  her  allowance.  But  in  many  cases  it  is  impracticable  for 
her  to  administer,  either  from  ago,  infirmity,  ignorance,  or  in- 
ability to  give  bond,  and  then,  from  the  exigency  of  her  situation 
and  the  very  nature  of  the  relief  secured  to  her  by  the  statutes 
under  consideration,  a  speedy  and  summary  remedy  to  obtain  her 
in  summary  rights  is  iudispensablc,^  and  is  in  most  States  provided 
proceeding.  ]jy  enabling  the  widow  to  obtain  her  allowance  by 
simple  motion  or  petition,  if  the  court  or  commissioners  should 
Notice  to  ad-  oi^it  to  grant  it  without  such  motion.*  Notice  to  the 
ministrator.  administrator  is  not  in  every  State  necessary,^  but  is 
in  some  States  required  by  statute,^  and  the  safer  course  and 
better  practice  is  undoubtedly  for  the  court  to  require  notice  to  be 
given,  at  least  in  cases  where  a  considerable  amount  is  in  ques- 

Clark,  127  Mass.  ill.     In  Alabama,  the  reason   for   the    probate    judge    further 

right  of  the  widow  to  claim  exemption  dehiying   tlie  setting  off  of  these  allow- 

of   her    husband's   share   in   partnership  ances  :  Curtis  v.  Probate  Judge,  35  Mich, 

property  is  not  lost  or  waived,  although  220. 

the  surviving  partner,  administering  on  *  Calvit  r.  Calvit,  ."2  Miss.  124;  Council 

the  estate  of  his   deceased   partner,  has  v.  Chandler,  11  Tex  249.     But  the  allow 

prematurely  paid  debts  out  of  his  own  ance    cannot    be    made     until    she    lias 

funds:  Little  w.  McPlierson,  76  Ala.  552.  accounted  for  funds  in  her  hands    Cliuruh- 

1  Padfield  v.  Padfield,  78  III.  16.  ill  r.  Bee,  60  Ga.  621. 

2  Succession   of   Geisler,   32    La.   An.  ^  Morgan  ?).  Morgan,  .36  Miss.  348. 
1289,  overruling  Succession  of  Coleman,  '^  Goss  v.  Greenaway,  70  Ga.  130,  132. 
27  La.  An.  289.  In  such  case  the  administrator  is  a  neces- 

3  It  was  held  in  Michigan,  that  where  sary  party  :  McElmurray  v.  Loomis,  31 
the  action  of  the  probate  judge  in  denying  Fed.  Rep.  395;  and  objections  may  be 
allowances  has  been  reversed  on  appeal,  made  at  or  before  the  term  for  which  the 
the  fact  that  a  motion  is  pending  to  set  notice  is  given  :  Parks  v.  Johnson,  5 
aside  the  order  of  reversal  is  no  valid  S.  E.  R.  (Ga.)  243. 


§  92      TIME    AND    rnOCEDURE   TO    OBTAIN    ALLOWANCE.  189 

tion.^     Tlic  administrator  is  not  required  to  wait  for  May  he  made 
an  order  of  court,  but  may  make  the  necessary  ex-  Sr"'Xut''*' 
pcnditures  as  the  exigencies  occur,  and  the  court  will  o'-'^'^'-  "^  '^^""'"f- 
allow  such  sums  as  may  be  reasonable  in  the  settlement ;  ^  or  the 
widow  may  simply  retain  the  property  she  is  entitled  to,  which 
tlie  administrator  will  not  be  permitted  to  recover ;  ^  but  the  pro- 
bate court  has  exclusive  jurisdiction  in  such  case,*  and  if  she  claim 
and  retain  property  not  secured  to  her,  he  may  assert  his  right 
thereto  against  her  and  her  vendee;^  and  on  the  other  hand,  the 
court  may  order  the  property  to  be  assigned  to  her.*^     In  Illinois 
the  appraisers  fix  the  widow's  award,  and  the  probate  court,  while 
it  may  for  good  cause  shown  order  another  appraisement  or  re- 
move the  appraisers,"  has  no  power  to  modify  the  award  or  esti- 
mate, nor  substitute  the  judgment  of  the  court  for  that  of  the 
appraisers. '^ 

Where  the  entire  estate  is  not  greater  than  what  is  allowed  to  a 
widow  without  administration,  she  may  defend  her  title  in  equity, 
although  the  probate  court  has  made  no  order  in  the  matter.^ 
Where  an  application  by  the  widow  or  minor  children  is  necessary 
at  all,  it  should  be  made  as  early  as  possible,  since,  as  Application,  if 
a  general  rule,  it  cannot  be  entertained  when  the  time  "houlTbe 
for  which  the  temporary  allowance  w^as  intended  has  "^'''^^  *^'"'-^'' 
expired  .10     Thus  it  was  held  that  after  a  lapse  of  four  ^;,*^''„,^'J"bT 
years  from  the  husband's  death  the  probate  court  had  barred, 
not  the  power  to  grant  the  allowance,!^  much  less   after  thirty 
years. 1^     In  North  Carolina  it  was  held  that  the  application  must 
be  made  during  the  first  term  of  the  court  after  the  grant  of  let- 
ters, and  that  a  petition  filed  two  years  thereafter  was  too  late  ;  ^^ 
but  where  no  letters  were  granted  until  eight  years  after  the  hus- 
band's death,  the  widow  was  held  entitled  to  her  allowance  during 

1  Cummings  v.  Allen,  34  N.  H.  194;  ^  Boyer  >:  Boyer,  21  III.  App.  534. 
Wright  V.  Wright,  13  Allen,  207  ;  Heck  v.  »  Scoville's   Estate,  20  111.  App.  426. 
Heck,  34  Oh.  St.  369;  Palomares's  Estate,     and  cases  cited. 

63  Cal.  402.  9  Hampton  i\  Physick,  24  Ark.  5G1. 

2  Sawyer  v.  Sawyer,  28  Vt.  245,  248;  i'  Ordinarily,  tlie  application  should  be 
Frierson  v.  Wesberry,  11  Rich.  L.  353;  made  as  soon  as  the  inventory  of  the  es- 
Clayton  v.  Wardell,  2  Bradf.  1,  7;  Fel-  tate  is  returned:  Kingman  v.  Kingman, 
lows  V.  Smith,  130  Mass.  376.  31  N.  H.  182;  but  a  delay  of  twenty-five 

^  Eans  V.  Eans,  79  Mo.  53,  6-5.  days  is  not  unreasonable :  lb.,  p.  187. 

*  Griswold  V.  Matti.x,  21  Mo.  App.  282,  "  Hubbard  r.  Wood,  15  N.  H.  74. 

285.  ^-  Mathes  ;-.  Bennett,  21  N.  H.  188. 

5  Bell  V.  Hall,  76  Ala.  546.  ^^  Gillespie  v.  Hymans,  4  Dev.  119. 

6  Heller  v.  Leisse,  13  Mo.  App.  180, 182. 


190  PROVISIONAL    ALIMONY   OF   THE   FAMILY.  §  92 

the  term.i  In  Indiana,  wliere  the  widow  is  authorized  to  select 
"  at  the  time  of  the  vahiation  "  certain  articles  of  property,  it  was 
held  that  it  was  not  the  duty  of  the  executor  or  administrator  to 
set  a])art  and  tender  the  property,  and  that,  if  she  does  not  select 
before  it  passes  into  other  hands,  she  must  be  deemed  to  have 
waived  her  privilege.^  So,  in  Mississippi,  it  was  decided  that 
the  authority  to  grant  and  apportion  such  allowance  between  the 
widow  and  children  resided  exclusively  in  the  probate  court,  and 
that  all  parties  claiming  rights  in  such  apportionment  must  be 
held  to  the  presentation  of  their  claims  before  the  report  of  the  ap- 
praisers shall  have  been  confirmed  by  the  probate  court  under  the 
provisions  of  the  statute,  or  else  be  deemed  to  have  waived  them 
in  favor  of  those  beneficiaries  whose  claims  are  presented  ;  and 
that  hence  a  chancery  court  has  no  power  to  grant  relief  to  chil- 
dren petitioning  for  a  portion  of  such  award  against  the  widow, 
to  whom  it  had  been  made.^  But  where  such  award  had  been  set 
out  by  the  appraisers,  and,  the  estate  turning  out  to  be  insolvent, 
the  commissioners  of  insolvency  declined  to  take  cogniaance  of 
her  claim  for  the  year  s  support,  it  was  held  that  the  claim  might 
be  asserted  at  any  time  before  the  final  settlement  of  the  estate, 
the  time  for  asserting  it  not  having  been  limited  to  the  year 
succeeding  the  decedent's  death,  or  to  any  particular  time.^  In 
Pennsylvania  it  has  been  repeatedly  decided  that  the  right  of  a 
widow  to  retain  real  or  personal  property  of  her  husband's  es- 
tate of  the  value  of  $300  is  a  personal  privilege  which  she  may 
waive  ;  and  that  it  is  waived  entirely  if  she  neglect  to  demand  an 
appraisement,  and  pro  tanto  if  she  retain  less  than  the  value  of 
1300.5  3ut  where  a  liusband  deserted  his  wife,  and  the  separation 
continues  without  fault  of  the  husband,  she  is  not  required  at  her 
peril  to  take  notice  of  his  death;  and  if  she  make  her  applica- 
tion witliin  reasonable  time  after  learning  of  his  death,  although 
eighteen  months  afterward,  and  after  the  real  estate  had  been 
sold,  the  account  on  the  estate  had  been  filed,  and  the  auditors 
to  distribute  appointed,  it  must  be  allowed.^     In  Alabama  '  and 

1  Ex  parte  Enters,  63  N.  C.  110.     See  Appeal,  34  Pa.  St.  2-56;  Burk  v.  Gleason, 

Rizer's  Estate,  15  Phila.  647.  46  Pa.  St.  207;  Rnskiii's  Appeal,  38  Pa. 

•i  Jolinson  v.  Robertson.  7  Blackf.  42-5  ;  St.  65 ;  Hufman's  Appeal,  81  Pa.  St.  329; 

Tucker  v.  Henderson,  68  Ala.  280,  282.  Lawley's  Appeal,  9  Atl.  R.  327. 

3  Dease  v.  Cooper,  40  Miss.  114.  ^  Terry's  Appeal,  55  Pa.  St.  344,  346  ; 

*  MeNiiltyr.  Lewis, 8  Sm.&M. 620,526.  Rank's    Estate,    12   Phiia.   67;    Hurley's 

5  Somers's  Estate,  14  Pliila.  261;  An-  Estate,  12  Pliila.  47. 
dress's    Estate,    14    Phila.  263;    Davis's  7  jyiitciiani  j;.  Moore,  73  Ala.  542,  545. 


§  93  ADDITIONAL   ALLOWANCES.  191 

Texas  it  is  the  imperative  duty  of  tlic  judfre  of  pro-  Duty  of  judge 
bate  to  malce  the  aUowiiiice,  upon  or  without  the  a,'n"o'wi'thour" 
motion  of  the  widow  ;  ^  and  the  widow  and  cliildrcn  api'iitatiou. 
do  not  forfeit  or  lose  their  riglit  to  the  same  from  their  neglect 
to  apj)ly,  or  the  failure  of  the  chief  justice  (i)robate  judge)  to 
make  it  in  time ;  but  if  the  estate  is  solvent,  it  is  too  late  to  make 
such  application  when  the  estate  is  ready  for  partition  and  distri- 
bution. "  The  time  during  which  the  statute  intends  to  secure 
the  property  to  the  widow  and  children  has  then  j)assed,  and  a  sub- 
secpient  right  to  it,  by  virtue  of  such  allowance,  is  expressly  repu- 
diated." '^  In  Illinois  tlie  widow's  claim  is  held  not  to  be  included 
in  the  statutory  provision  requiring  demands  to  be  presented 
against  a  decedent's  estate  within  two  years,  and  may  be  allowed 
although  not  presented  within  two  years.^  In  Missouri,  by  the 
terms  of  the  statute,  the  allowance  may  he  claimed  at  anytime 
before  it  is  paid  out  in  discharge  of  debts,  or  distributed ;  but 
where  the  personal  assets  are  exhausted  before  the  claim  is  made, 
it  cannot  be  allowed  out  of  tlie  proceeds  of  real  estate  sold  for 
the  payment  of  debts.*  In  Wisconsin  a  widow  was  allowed  her 
statutory  allowance,  notwithstanding  she  had,  within  a  year,  sur- 
rendered the  estate  devised  to  her,  for  the  benefit  of  creditors, 
including  her  exemptions.^ 

§  93.   Additional  Allowances.  —  Whether  a  second  claim  for  the 
widow's  allowance  can  be  entertained  or  granted,  must  obviously 
depend  npon  the  nature  of  the  original  allowance.     If  There  mav  be 
this  was  intended  for  immediate  relief  only,  and  was  u, wane" i' if"  he 
granted  before  there  was  an  opportunity  of  determin-  j'^'lIl'^l'^nowlTd' 
ino;  the  extent  of  the  allowance  to  which  the  situation  ""'^  intended 

^  to  he  partial 

of  the  widow  and  her  family,  the  value  of  the  property  only. 
left  by  tlie  deceased,  the  amount  of  debts,  and  other  circumstances 
entitled  her,  it  is  apparent  that  such  allowance  cannot  be  looked 
npon  as  an  adjudication  upon  the  matter,  and  that,  in  the  absence 
of  a  restraining  statute,  the  probate  court  has  power  to  make  a 
new  allowance  upon  proper  proof  of  the  circumstances  justifying 
it.^     In  many  States,  the  statute  ex})rcssly,  or  by  necessary  impli- 

1  Connell  v.  Cliamller,   11   Tex.   249.  2  ijttle  v.  Birdwell,  27  Tex.  688,  691. 

But  wliere  an  allowaiue  has  been  made  ^  Miller  v.  Miller,  82  III.  4(j3. 

and  the  widow  for  many  years  forbears  ^  Ante,  §  80;  Kitc-hey  v.  Withers,  72 

the  enforcement  of  it,  she  will  beestopped  Mo  556,  559. 
from  asserting  it:  Tiebout  r.  Millican,  61  ''  Henry's  Estate,  65  Wis.  551. 

Tex.  514.  ^  Hale  v.  Hale,  1  Gray,  518. 


192  PROVISIONAL   ALIMONY   OF  THE   FAMILY.  §  93 

cation,  grants  the  power  to  make  additional  allowances.^  But 
where  it  is  allowable  out  of  the  personal  estate  only,  there  can  be 
no  further  allowance  when  that  is  exhausted,  although  it  be  in  the 
payment  of  debts.^  And  if,  upon  the  appraisement  of  the  specihc 
articles  to  which  the  widow  is  entitled,  she  elect  to  take  money  in 
lieu  thereof,  this  election  concludes  her  in  the  absence  of  fraud, 
and  she  cannot  afterward  have  a  larger  allowance.^  And  so,  if 
the  widow  has  drawn  her  support  from  her  husband's  estate  dur- 
ing the  year  succeeding  his  death,  although  it  was  not  formally 
set  apart  to  her,  and  although  she  rendered  valuable  services  to 
the  estate  during  that  period,  she  is  entitled  to  no  further  allow- 
ance by  way  of  the  year's  support.*  The  petition  for  further 
allowance  must  show  that  the  former  provision  is  insufficient  or 
exhausted.^  The  appraisers  appointed  to  set  out  for  the  use  of 
the  widow  and  minor  children  their  temporary  allowance  are 
ministerial  officers,  and  their  acts  may  be  revised  by  the  court,^ 
but  tlie  court  cannot  modify  the  appraisement  and  substitute  its 
own  judgment  for  that  of  the  appraisers."^  Nor  can  the  circuit 
court,  on  appeal,  exercise  any  power  which  the  probate  court  could 
not  have  exercised.^     A  court  of  probate  wdiich  is  without  power 

1  In  Arkansas  the   widow  may  select  wearing  apparel,  and  household  furniture, 
property  nut  exceeding  the  value  of  $150,  and  such  reasonable  provisions  for  their 
in   addition    to    the    amount    absolutely  support  as  the  probate  judge  may  allow, 
allowed,  if  the  estate  is  solvent :  Dig.  St.  On  return   of    the   inventory,  or  subse- 
1884,  §  63.     In  C'«///;jrn/a,  if  the  amount  quently,  the  judge  may  on  his  own  motion 
set  apart  be  insufficient  for  the  support  or  on  application  set  apart  for  the  use  of 
of  the  widow  and  children,  or  either,  the  the   family    all    property    exempt    from 
probate    court    makes    such    additional  execution ;  and  if  this  be  deemed  insuffi- 
allowance  out  of  the  estate  as  may  be  cient  for  their  support,  the  probate  judge 
necessary  during  the   process   of   settle-  may  make   additional   reasonable  allow- 
ment :    2   Civ.   Proc.  §  1466  ;    Roberts's  ance  during  the  pendency  of  the  settle- 
Estate,  67   Cal.  349.     In   Georgia,  if  the  ment,  but  not  longer  than  one  year  if  the 
estate   is  kept  together  longer  than  one  estate  is  insolvent :  Comp.  L.  1873,  §  603. 
year,  the  allowance  is  to  be  renewed  by  In  Vermont  the  maintenance  is  to  be  out 
tlie    original    or    by    newly    appointed  of  the  personal  or  income  of  real  estate, 
appraisers  :    Code,    1882.       In   Iowa   the  but  never  longer  than  until  the  widow's 
allowance   may  by  subsequent   order  be  share    in    the    estate    be   assigned    her: 
diminished   or  increased:    Code,  §  2377.  Gen.  St.  1880,  §2109.     So  in  Wisconsin: 
In  Maine  the  allowance  may  be  made  from  Kev.  St.  1878,  §  3935. 
time  to  time  until  the  final  settlement:  ^  Hale    v.    Hale,    supra;    Ritchey    v. 
Rev.  St.  1883,  p.  552,  §  23.     In  Michigan  Withers,  72  Mo.  556. 
tlie  judge  is  to  allow  such  amount  for  ^  Telford  v.  Boggs,  63  111.  498. 
maintenance  as  he  may  deem  necessary,  ■*  Blassingame  v.  Hose,  34  Ga.  418. 
in  case  of  insolvency  not  longer  than  one          ^  Luther's  Estate,  67  Cal.  319. 
year  :  How.  St.  1882,  §  5847.     So  in  Ne-          «  Applegate  v.  Cameron,  2  Bradf.  119. 
6ras/>o  ,•  Gen.  St.  1887,  ch.  33,  §  176.     In  '  Miller  i'.  Miller,  82  111.  463.    See  an<e, 
Nevada  the   widow  and   minor   children  p.  189. 
remain  in   possession  of  tiie  homestead,         ^  Telford  v.  Boggs,  63  III.  498. 


§  93  ADDITIONAL   ALLOWANCES.  193 

to  revoke  or  revise  its  own  decrees  and  judgments,  cannot  set 
aside  its  own  allowance  and  decree  a  smaller  sum,  unless  the 
original  judgment  was  reversed,  or  reformed  on  appeal,  or  ad- 
judged void.^  But  where  the  probate  judge  refuses  to  grant  an 
application  to  adjudge  an  estate  insolvent  for  the  want  of  suffi- 
cient evidence  to  support  it,  he  may,  on  a  new  application  sup- 
ported by  suihcient  evidence,  grant  the  same.^  And  an  order 
allowing  certain  amounts  to  be  paid  periodically  during  the 
settlement  of  the  estate  may  be  modified  so  as  to  reduce  the 
future  payments,  if  it  be  shown  that  the  circumstances  have 
changed ;  but  without  such  proof  an  order  reducing  the  allowance 
made  is  an  abuse  of  discretion .^ 

1  Pettee  v.  Wilmarth,  5  Allen,  144.  »  Baker  v.  Baker,  51  Wis.  538,  548. 

2  Bucknam  v.  Phelps,  6  Mass.  448. 


VOL.  I.  — 18 


194  EXEMPTION   OF   THE   HOMESTEAD.  §  94 


CHAPTER   X. 

EXEMPTION    OF   THE   HOMESTEAD. 

§  94.  Nature  of  the  Homestead  Right  of  the  Surviving  Family. — 
The  policy  which  dictates  the  provisions  for  the  support  of  the 
Shelter  to  wife  family  immediately  after  the  death  of  its  natural  pro- 
and  children  in  y](jgj.  ^nd  protectop    also  requires  the  homestead  to 

case  of  niiprov-  i  ^ 

idence  or  mis-    Iqq  sccured  to  the   surviviuff  husband  or  widow  and 

fortune,  as  well  ° 

as  in  case  of  miuor  children.  The  obvious  intent  of  homestead 
the  head  of  the  laws  is  uo  Icss  to  sccurc  a  homc  and  shelter  to  the 
family.  family,  when  bereft  of  its  father  or  mother,  beyond 

the  reach  of  financial  misfortune,  which  even  the  most  prudent 
and  sagacious  cannot  always  avoid,^  than  to  prote^^t  citizens  and 
their  families  from  the  miseries  and  dangers  of  destitution  ^  by 
protecting  the  wife  and  children  against  the  neglect  and  improvi- 
dence of  the  father  and  husband.^  The  homestead  exemption 
would  be  divested  of  its  most  essential  and  characteristic  feature, 
if,  upon  the  death  of  the  head  of  the  family,  it  should  be  with- 
drawn from  the  widow  and  children;  hence  nearly  all  the  statutes 
upon  this  subject  provide  for  its  continuance  to  the  surviving 
constituents  of  the  family.*  It  has  been  held  that  "  the  exemp- 
tion is  not  to  the  debtor,  as  such,  but  to  the  head  of  a  family. 
The  subject  of  the  protection  is  the  family,— the  head  of  the 
family  being  referred  to  as  its  representative.  It  would  be  an 
unreasonable  and  unnatural  conclusion  to  hold  that  this  provision 
was  not  intended  for  the  security  of  families,  deprived  of  their 
natural  protector.  That  the  head  of  the  family  must  be  the 
debtor,  in  order  to  secure  such  protection,  is  neither  within  the 
letter  nor  within  the  spirit  of  the  law.  Whenever  there  is  a 
family  and  a  family  homestead,  it  is  to  be  presumed  that  there  is 
a  head  to  the  family,  or  one  peculiarly  charged  with  responsibility 
for  the  protection  of  the  family  ;  and  the  homestead  is  to  be 

1  Wassell  V.  Tunnah,  25  Ark.  101, 103.  ^  Cook  v.  McChristhn,  4  Cnl.  23,  26. 

2  Franklin  v.  Coffee,  18  Tex.  413,  415.  *  Thomp.  on  Honiest.,  §  540. 


94 


HOMESTEAD   RIGHT   OF   THE   SURVIVING    FAMILY.  195 


regarded  as   the  family  homestead  of  the  head  of  such  family, 
within  the  meaning  of  the  Constitution."  ^ 

Tiie  homestead  exemption  is  not  strictly  an  estate,  or  property, 
passing  to  those  who  are,  under  the  law,  entitled  to  enjoy  it ;  bat 
rather  a  protection  to  them  in  its  enjoyment  against  Homestead  not 
the  demands  of  creditors  ;  as  the  creditors  could  not  ^;;  ^^^^^^^^j^i 
enforce  their  demands  out  of  the  property  constituting 
the  homestead  during  the  lifetime  of  the  debtor,  so  neither  they, 
nor  the  creditor  of  any  member  of  the  surviving  family,  can 
enforce  them  after  his  death,  so  long  as  there  is  a  family,  or,  in 
most  of  the  States,  a  widow.^  But  where  a  man  has  lost  his 
family,  the  exemption  ceases  with  the  reason  for  it.^  This  right 
of  the  surviving  widow  and  minor  children  is  described  as  an 
exemption,  continuing  during  the  minority  of  the  children  and 
the  life  or  widowhood  of  the  widow  in  Alabama,*  Colorado,^ 
Florida,^  Georgia,^  Illinois,^  lowa,^  Kansas,!^  Kentucky,"  Louisi- 
aiia,^2  Maine,i3  Massachusetts,!*  Michigan,!^  Minnesota,i*5Missouri,i7 
New  Ilampshire,!^   New   Jersey ,i^   New  York,20   North  Carolina,^! 


1  Willard,  J.,  in  In  Re  Kennedy,  2 
S  C.  2H>,  227;  see  RofE  i-.  Johnson,  40 
Ga.  555,  558. 

2  Black  ;•.  Curran,  14  Wall.  46.3,  469 ; 
Burns  v.  Keas,  21  Iowa,  257;  Hicks  v. 
Pepper,  1  Baxt.  42,  44 ;  Myrick,  J.,  in 
Estate  of  Moore,  57  Cal.  437,  442,  444. 

3  Hill  V.  Franklin,  54  Miss.  632. 

4  Code,  1886,  §  2543.  But  if  the  estate 
is  insolvent,  the  homestead  vests  abso- 
lutely in  the  widow  and  minor  children  : 
Ibid. ;  and  hence  descends  to  the  heirs : 
Dossey  v.  Pitman,  81  Ala.  381 ;  unaffected 
by  the  statutory  preference  of  the  whole 
to  the  half  blood  :  Eatman  v.  Eatman,  83 
Ala.  478. 

5  Gen.  St.  1883,  §§  1633,  16.34. 

6  McClell.  Dig.  1881,  p.  520,  §§  1,  3. 
The  constitution  provides  that  the  exemp- 
tion "  shall  accrue  to  the  lieirs  of  the 
party  having  enjoyed  or  taken  the  bene- 
fit of  such  exemption " ;  and  it  is  held 
that  in  this  State  the  widow  takes  no 
homestead  riffht,  because  the  constitution 
gives  none  :  Wilson  v.  Fridenburg,  19  Fla. 
461,  466;  that  the  exemption  from  sale 
for  the  debts  of  the  owner  is  all  that 
enures  to  the  heirs  :  Brokaw  v.  McDougall, 


20  Fla.  212,  224.  Where  there  are  no 
debts,  the  heirs  take  by  descent :  Wilson 
V.  Fridenherg,  21  Fla.  386,  389. 

"  Hodo  V.  Johnson,  40  Ga.  439,  441 ; 
Rutledge  v.  McFarland,  75  Ga.  774. 

8  St.  &  Cur.  St.  1885,  p.  1101,  par.  2. 
See  Raber  i-.  Gund,  110  111.  581,  589. 

9  Code,  §§  2007,  2008. 

1*^  Vandiver  v.  Vandiver,  20  Kans.  501 ; 
Stratton  v.  McCandliss,  32  Kans.  512; 
Dayton  v.  Donart,  22  Kans.  256,  269. 

11  Gen.  St.  1887,  p.  577,  §  14.  Gay  v. 
Hanks,  81  Ky.  552. 

12  Rev.  St.  1876,  §§  1691,  1693  ;  Const. 
1879,  art.  219. 

13  Rev.  St.  1883,  p.  684,  §  66. 

14  Pub.  St.  1882,  p.  739,  §  8. 

15  2  How.  St.  1882,  §  7721. 

16  St.  1878,  p.  767,  §  1. 
1"  Rev.  St.  §  2693. 

18  Gen.  St.  1878,  p.  330,  §  1. 

19  Rev.  St.  1877,  p.  1055,  §  1. 
23  Code  Civ.  Pr.  §  1400. 

21  Const,  art.  10 ;  the  right  of  the  widow 
to  the  homestead  being  paramount  to  that 
of  children,  by  virtue  of  dower  :  Watts  v. 
Leggett,  66  N.  C.  197,  cited  and  approved 
in  Gregory  v.  Ellis,  86  N.  C.  579,  588. 


196 


EXEMPTION    OF   THE    HOMESTEAD. 


§94 


Ohio,^  South  Carolina,^  Tennessee,^  Texas,^  Virginia,^  and  West 
Virginia.^  It  does  not,  therefore,  affect  the  rights  of  either 
On  its  termi-  Creditors  or  heirs  upon  the  expiration  of  the  time  to 
a\uicredkOTs  which  the  exemption  is  limited;  the  property  con sti- 
^^^'^-  tuting  tlie  homestead  then  passes  to  those  entitled  to 

it  under  devise  or  descent,  subject  to  the  claims  of  creditors,'^ 
as  if  no  homestead  had  intervened.^  In  Arkansas  ^  and  North 
Carolina,!''  the  widow,  having  a  homestead  in  her  own  right,  is  not 
entitled  to  the  exemption  of  that  of  her  deceased  husband  ;  and 
in  Louisiana  ^^  she  receives  it  only  if  in  necessitous  circumstances.'^^ 
In  Delaware,  Indiana,  Maryland,  Oregon,  Pennsylvania,  and 
Rhode  Island,  the  statutes  do  not  refer  to  homesteads  further 
than  that  their  exemption  may  be  included  in  the  amount  of 
property  which  the  head  of  a  family  may  select  as  exempt  from 
execution. 

In  Vermont  the  homestead  constitutes  not  an  exemption  sim|)ly. 


1  Rev.  St.  1880,  §  5437.  In  this  State 
the  widow  is  entitled  to  the  homestead 
only  while  a  minor  child  lives  with  her: 
Taylor  v.  Thorn,  29  Oh.  St,  569,  574. 

2  Rev.  St.  1873,  p.  476,  §  5;  see  Elliott 
V.  Mackorell,  19  S.  C.  238,  242;  Ex  parte 
Ray,  20  S.  C  246;  Yoe  v.  Hanvey,  25 
S.  C.  94. 

3  Code,  1884,  §  2943. 

*  Hoffmann  v.  Neuhaus,  30  Tex.  633, 
636 :  "  As  long  as  there  is  a  family  having 
a  head,  and  as  long  as  tliis  head  of  a  family 
occupies  the  homestead,  it  cannot  he  in- 
terfered witli  for  any  purpose."  In  Texas 
an  allowance  is  to  be  made  to  the  widow 
out  of  the  deceased  husband's  estate  in 
lieu  of  a  homestead,  if  there  he  none  such 
belonging  to  his  estate :  Rev.  St.  §  1995 
et  spq^;  Clift  v.  Kaufman,  60  Tex.  64  ;  the 
right  tliereto  is  not  forfeited  by  subse- 
quent marriage  :  lb.,  p.  66,  citing  Pressley 
V.  Robinson,  57  Tex.  453,  460.  But  an 
allowance  in  lieu  of  a  homestead  will  be 
deemed  abandoned  if  not  claimed  for 
mnnv  years:  Tiebout  v.  Millican,61  Tex. 
514.' 

5  Code,  1887,  §  3635  c^  scr/. 

6  2  Kelley's  Rev.  St.  1879,  p.  593,  §  13. 

"  See  discussion  of  this  subject  in  con- 
nection with  the  sale  of  real  estate  for  the 
payment  of  debts,  post,  §  483. 

8  Thomp.  on  Homest.,  §  548,  and  au- 


thorities ;  Booth  r.  Goodwin,  29  Ark.  633, 
636;  Taylor  v.  Thorn,  29  Oh.  St.  569, 
574  ;  Heard  v.  Downer,  47  Ga.  629,  631  ; 
Chalmers  v.  Turnipseed,  21  S.  C.  126, 
138;  Garibaldi  v.  Jones,  48  Ark.  230. 
See  as  to  the  rights  of  mortgage  creditors, 
Barrett  v.  Durham,  5  S.  E.  R.  (Ga.)  102. 

9  Dig.  1884,  pp.  140,  141;  Const.  1868, 
art.  12,  §§  4,  5, 

1*^  Wharton  v.  Leggett,  80  N.  C.  169, 
170,  citing  Const,  art.  10,  §  3. 

"  La.  Acts,  1852,  p.  171. 

12  If  the  widow  and  any  of  the  chil- 
dren, altiiough  not  her  own  offspring,  own 
property  amounting  to  or  exceeding  $1000 
in  value,  they  take  nothing  under  this 
provision  of  the  law  •  Succession  of  Les- 
sassier,  34  La.  An.  1066;  and  if  they  own 
less,  m  the  aggregate,  tliey  will  receive 
sufficient  to  make  the  amount  J^IOOO,  in- 
cluding the  amount  allowed  for  the  imme- 
diate sustenance  of  tlie  family:  Stewart 
V.  Stewart,  13  La.  An  .398;  althougli  the 
widow  herself,  or  any  of  the  minors,  were 
in  necessitous  circumstances,  and  pos- 
sessed nothing,  or  less  than  SIOOO:  McCall 
V.  McCatl,  15  La.  An.  527;  and  moneys 
received  by  the  widow  or  children  from 
benevolent  societies  are  deducted  from 
the  amount  allowed  her:  Succession  of 
Wellmeyer,  .34  La.  An.  819,  Coyle  v. 
Creevy,  34  La.  An.  539. 


§  94        HOMESTEAD    RIGHT   OF   THE   SURVIVING   FAMILY.  107 

but  passes  absolutely  to  the  widow  and  children  ;  ^  and  Homestead  an 
in  Wisconsin  the  homestead  descends  free  of  all  judg-  absolute  estate. 
ments  and  claims  against  the  deceased  owner,  except  mortgages 
and  laborers'  and  mechanics'  liens,  to  the  widow,  if  there  are  no 
children,  and  if  there  are  children,  to  the  widow  during  widow- 
hood, and  on  her  marriage  or  death,  to  his  heirs;  if  there  is  issue 
and  no  widow,  then  to  such  issue.^  If  the  homestead  be  devised, 
the  devisees  take  the  same  free  of  judgments  and  claims,  except 
mortgages  and  liens.^  The  Missouri  statute  was  likewise  at  one 
time  construed  to  vest  the  fee  to  the  homestead  in  the  widow, 
subject  to  cotenancy  of  all  the  children  during  minority  ;^  but  at 
the  session  of  the  General  Assembly  next  following  this  decision, 
the  law  was  amended  so  as  to  expressly  limit  the  widow's  interest 
to  an  exemption  during  her  life.^  Where  the  widow  takes  an 
absolute  title  to  the  homestead,  subject  to  the  cotenancy  of  minor 
children,  it  follows  that  upon  her  death  the  title  vests  in  her  heirs, 
equally  free  from  the  claims  of  any  creditors  of  the  late  husband,^ 
and,  in  so  far  as  she  herself  became  the  head  of  a  family  and 
transmitted  homestead  rights  as  such,  from  her  own  creditors." 

The  language  of  the  statutes  of  Nebraska  ^  and  Nevada  ^  seems 
to  indicate  the  same  intention,  but  the  statutes  have  not,  so  far 
as  known  to  the  writer,  received  judicial  construction  on  this 
point.  In  Mississippi  the  surviving  wife  or  husband  takes  the 
homestead  (together  with  other  exempt  property)  by  descent,  to- 
gether with  the  children  as  tenants  in  common  ;  and  on  his  or 
her  death  it  descends  as  other  property  by  law  of  that  State.^*^  In 
Alabama  the  widow  and  minor  children  take  the  fee  if  the  estate 
is  insolvent ;  11  but  the  insolvency  must  be  declared  during  the 
minority  of  the  children  claiming  an  absolute  fee ;  the  declaration 
after  majority  does  not  revive  and  enlarge  the  homestead  estate, 
which  terminated  with  the  majority.!^ 

In  California,  Louisiana,  Nevada,  and  Texas,  the  law  recognizes 

1  Day  V.  Adams,  42  Vt.  510,  516.  »  Comp.  L.  1887,  ch.  36,  §  17. 

2  Rev.  St.  1878,  §  2271.  9  1  Comp.  L.  187-3,  §  189. 

3  Rev.  St.  1878,  §  2280.  i"  Ac-ts  Miss.  1865,  p.  138,  §  3 ;  Code, 
*  Skouten  v.  Wood,  57  Mo.  380,  383;     1880,  §  1277. 

Rogers  V.  Marsh,  73  Mo.  64,  69.  "  Code,    1886,   §   2543  ;    Hartsfield   i: 

6  Laws  Mo.  1875,  p.  60,  §  1  ;  Rev.  St.  Ilarvoley,  71  Ala.  231  ;  hence  the  estate, 
1879,  §  2693.  where  there  are  no  children,  descends  to 

«  Freund  v.  McCall,  73  Mo.  343,  346;  the  widow's  heirs:  Dossey  v.  Pitman,  81 
Cannle  >:  Hurt,  78  Mo.  649.  Ala.  381. 

7  French  v.  Stratton,  79  Mo.  560.  ^'-  Baker  v.  Keitli,  72  Ala.  121. 


198  EXEMPTJON   OF   THE   HOMESTEAD.  §  95 

Community  ^  kiiid  of  property  known  in  the  civil  law  as  commu- 
property.  j^j^^,  proj)ertj,  wbicli  to  some  extent  affects  the  dispo- 

sition of  the  homestead  upon  the  death  of  either  of  the  tenants 
in  community. 1  In  Texas  it  is  held  that,  upon  the  death  of  a  con- 
nubial partner,  the  interest  of  the  deceased  goes  to  the  heir  in 
community  property,  the  homestead  remaining  subject  to  the 
homestead  right  of  the  surviving  partner  ;2  but  the  latter  cannot, 
by  a  sale  or  conveyance,  deprive  the  minor  children  of  their  inter- 
est in  the  community  property  descended  from  their  deceased 
parent.^  If  the  surviving  spouse,  remaining  unmarried,  file  an 
inventory  and  appraisement  of  the  community  estate,  he  or  she 
may  dispose  of  the  same  without  administration  or  proceeding  in 
the  probate  court ;  *  and  this  is  construed  as  authorizing  the  sur- 
vivor to  sell  the  homestead  as  well  as  the  other  property  of  the 
community,^  after  recording  the  inventory  and  appraisement.^ 
In  California  the  statute  vests  the  homestead  property  selected  by 
husband  and  wife  in  the  survivor  of  tliem,  absolutely,  free  from 
any  debts  or  liabilities  contracted  before  the  death  ;  and  this 
language  is  held  to  deprive  the  children  of  any  homestead  rights 
against  claims  accruing  subsequent  to  such  death,  although  the 
homestead  may  have  been  set  apart  by  the  probate  court  as  such, 
in  favor  of  the  surviving  husband  and  children.'' 

§  95.    "What  Tenement  constitutes  the  Homestead   descending.  — 

The  homestead  thus  transmitted  to  the  surviving  family  of  one 

dying  is  the  homestead  in  fact,  —  the  dwelling-place 

Homestead  is         "^       ^  .  '  °  ^ 

the  actual         occupicd  by  the  family,  with  all  the  land  and  its  appur- 
tenances to  the  extent  allowed  by  the  statute,^  —  at  the 
time  of  the  death .^     Unless  so  expressed  by  statute,  the  survivors 

1  Lord  V.  Lord,  65  Cal.  84.  As  to  the  ^  Kirkland  v.  Little,  41  Tex.  456,  460, 
nature  of  community  property,  see  post,     citing  earlier  cases. 

§  122.  ^  Watson  v.  His  Creditors,  58  Cal.  556, 

2  Bell  V.  Schwarz,  37  Tex.  572,  574;  557,  citing  Rich  v.  Tubbs,  41  Cal.  34,  and 
Carter  v.  Randolph,  47  Tex.  376,  380;  Estate  of  Delaney,  37  Cal.  176, 181 ;  Her- 
Eubank  v.  Landram,  59  Tex.  247.  rold  v.  Reen,  58  Cal.  443. 

3  Walker  v.  Young,  -37  Tex.  519  ;  Clark  **  The  widow  is  liable  for  rent  of  prem- 
V.  Nolan,  38  Tex.  416,  419,  citing  earlier  ises  occupied  in  excess  of  the  home- 
cases,  stead  allowance:  Titcomb's  Estate,  M_\  r. 

*  Act,  Aug.  26,  1856,  §§3,7;  Pasch.  55;  but  not  otherwise,  and  repairs  and 
Dig.  art.  4648,  46-52.  permanent  improvements  will  be  appor- 

*  Dawson  v.  Holt,  44  Tex.  174,  177,  tioned  equitably  between  the  widow  and 
citing    former    Texas    cases;    Jordan   v.  heirs:  Engelhardt  i-.  Yung, /»//«. 
Imthurn,  51  Tex.  276.  9  Sossaman    v.  PowelC  2i   Tex.  GiJ4, 

666;  David  c.  David,  56  Ala.  49. 


§95 


WHAT   CONSTITUTES   THE    HOMESTEAD. 


199 


do  not  acquire,  in  consequence  of  .such  death,  the  right  to  select  a 
homestead  out  of  the  body  of  the  decedent's  estate ;  ^  and  where 
the  statute  confers  such  right,  the  homestead  must  be  set  out  and 
determined  by  the  proper  tribunals  in  accordance  with  the  stat- 
utory provisions.^  Nor  is  the  mere  intention  of  the  decedent  to 
occupy  a  particular  tract  of  land  as  a  homestead,  who  died  before 
such  intention  was  carried  into  effect,  sufficient  to  entitle  the 
widow  to  the  exemption  of  such  tract  as  a  homestead.-^  A  fortiori, 
the  widow  cannot  abandon  the  homestead  occupied  by  the  deceased 
and  his  family  at  the  time  of  his  death,  and  select  another,  as 
aeainst  the  rij-hts  of  creditors.*  The  abandonment  of  a  homestead 
by  the  widow  or  minor  children  has  been  held  to  destroy  their 
homestead  right  in  the  premises;^  but  however  proper  the  appli- 
cation of  such  principle  may  be  during  the  lifetime  of  the  debtor,^ 
it  is  necessary  to  observe  that  the  temporary  absence  ^^^^^^^  ^^ 
of  his  widow  does  not  constitute  abandonment,  either  widow  no 

n  luinrloiiin 


by  her  or  the  minor  children,"  and  that  the  tendency 


abaiuloninent. 


1  Thomp.  on  Homest.,  §  542  ;  Hoback 
V.  Hoback,  33  Ark.  399;  Pettus  v.  Mc- 
Kinney,  56  Ala.  41 ;  Dexter  v.  Strobach, 
56  Ala.  233  ;  In  re  Crowley,  71  Cal.  300, 
305  (confining  the  right  to  tlie  premises 
on  wiiich  husband  and  wife  resided  when 
their  declaration  was  filed);  Maloney  v. 
Refer,  17  Pac.  R.  (Cal.)  539. 

2  Cameto  v.  Diipuy,  47  Cal.  79,  80; 
HatorfE  v.  Wellford,  27  Graft.  3-56,  364; 
Roff  0.  Johnson,  40  Ga.  555,  561.  In 
Alabama  the  widow  of  the  deceased 
owner  of  a  lot  and  storehouse,  not  oc- 
cupied as  a  dwelling,  the  family  residing 
at  the  time  of  iiis  death  in  a  rented  house, 
is  entitled  to  select  the  storehouse  as  a 
homestead :  Hartsfield  v.  Harvoley,  71 
Ala.  231. 

3  Keyes  v.  Bump,  59  Vt.  391,  395; 
Goodall  V.  Boardman,  53  Vt.  92,  101  ; 
Drucker  v.  Rosenstein,  19  Fla.  191,  195; 
Talmadge  v.  Talmadge,  66  Ala.  199,  201 
(the  deceased  was  a  resident  of  Illinois 
at  tlie  time  of  his  death,  and  his  family 
were  denied  a  homestead  in  Alabama 
because  tlie  intention  to  acquire  a  domi- 
cil  there  was  defeated  by  his  death);  or 
after  it  is  sold  Fant  v.  Talbot,  81  Ky. 
23.  But  in  Engelhardt  v.  Yung,  76  Ala. 
534,  541,  it  was  held  that  where  a  house 
and  lot  was  purchased  witli  the  intention 
and  for  the   purpose  of   improving  aud 


repairing,  and  making  it  a  permanent 
residence,  the  death  of  the  purchaser  be- 
fore the  consummation  of  bis  purpose 
did  not  prevent  its  being  regarded  as  a 
homestead,  and  as  such  exempt  from  the 
payment  of  debts. 

■»  Chambers  v.  McPhaul,  55  Ala.  367 ; 
Rogers  v.  Ragland,  42  Tex.  422,  443  (re- 
versing s.  c.  34  Tex.  617)  approved  in 
Hendrix  v.  Hendrix,  46  Tex  6,  8.  But 
while  she  cannot  do  so  as  against  the 
rights  of  the  creditors  before  the  death 
of  the  husband,  yet  she  may  exchange 
the  liomestead  derived  from  him  for 
another  as  against  her  own  creditors  ■ 
Schneider  v.  Bray,  59  Tex.  668,  670. 
See  post,  §98,  as  to  the  widow's  right  to 
alienate  the  homestead  descended  to  her. 
"  Hicks  V.  Pepper,  1  Baxt.  42,  45  ; 
Kingman  v.  Higgins.  100  III.  319,  325; 
McCormack  r.  Kimniel,  4  III.  App.  121 ; 
Farnan  v.  Borders,  119  III  228;  Burch  v. 
Atchison,  82  Ky.  585;  Paul  v.  Paul,  136 
Mass.  286;  and  a  sale  is  an  abandonment : 
Garibaldi  i:  Jones,  48  Ark.  230,  237.  Re- 
moval of  tlie  family  constitutes  a  pn'mn 
facie  case  of  abandonment,  and  when 
coupled  with  the  acquisition  of  a  new 
homestead  elsewhere  is  conclusive  :  Kaes 
V.  Gross,  92  Mo.  647,  656. 

6  Thomp.  on  Homest,  §§  263-287- 
'  Carter   v.   Randolph,   47   Tex.   376, 


200 


EXEMPTION   OF    THE    HOMESTEAD. 


95 


of  courts  is  to  relax  the  requirement  of  literal  occupation  by  the 
widow,^  and  to  dispense  with  it  altogether  in  the  case  of  orphan 
minors.^ 

The  widow  and  children  take  the  same  estate  which  the  de- 
ceased husband   or  father  possessed  in  the  homestead,  and  no 
o-reater;-^  if  the  estate  is  less  than  a  fee,  it  ceases  with 

!>ame  estate         ^  '  ' 

descends  tiiat     the  cxpiratiou  of  the  term.*     The  mere  use  of  the 

husband  or  .  tit  i      i  t  /y    •       j.    j. 

father  pos-  premiscs  as  a  homestead  has  been  held  sumcient  to 
shelter  the  possession  against  creditors ;  ^  but  there 
must  be  some  title,  right,  or  interest  in  the  land  upon  which  the 
Possession  homcstcad  is  claimed.^  Possession  alone,  without 
againsrimra-"*^  Ownership  in  the  land  as  a  basis  for  the  homestead 
mount  title.  claim,  canuot  be  set  up  to  defeat  a  recovery  in  eject- 
ment under  a  paramount  legal  title  ; ''  nor  can  the  widow  or  minor 
children  claim  exception  from  the  bar  of  limitation.^  An  equi- 
table title  to  land  is  held,  in  most  States,  sufficient  to 


Equitable  title 
sufficient. 


support  the  homestead  against  all  the  woiid  but  the 


381  (where  the  widow  had  not  occupied 
the  homestead  for  two  years  after  the 
husband's  death)  ;  Titman  v.  Moore,  43 
111.  169,  173;  Franklin  v.  Coffee,  18  Tex. 
413,  416;  Evans  v.  Evans,  13  Bush,  587; 
Euper  V.  Alkire,  37  Ark.  283 ;  Clements 
V.  Lacy,  51  Tex.  150  ;  Cox  r.  Harvey,  1 
Tex.  Unrep.  Cas.  268,  273-275. 

1  Locke  V.  Rowell,  47  N.  H.  46,  49; 
Phipps  V.  Acton,  12  Bush,  375,  377  ; 
Brettun  v.  Fox,  100  Mass.  2.34.  236;  she 
may  rent  it  out  and  receive  the  rents, 
and  the  possession  of  the  tenant  will  be 
her  possession :  Garibaldi  v.  Jones,  48 
Ark.  230.  So,  while  a  lease  for  life  is 
generally  an  abandonment,  this  is  not 
the  case  where  the  lessor  reserves  the 
right  to  return  to  the  homestead :  Gates 
V.  Steele,  48  Ark.  539.  Where  however 
a  portion  of  a  tract  of  land  is  rented  out 
before  it  is  occupied  as  a  homestead,  the 
fact  that  the  remainder  is  subsequently 
so  occupied  will  not  stamp  the  portion 
leased  as  a  homestead :  In  re  Crowey,  71 
Cal.  .300. 

-  Thomp.  on  Homest.,  §  242  ;  Booth  v. 
Goodwin,  29  Ark.  6.33,  634,  and  Althei- 
nier  i-.  Davis,  37  Ark.  316,  both  of  these 
cases  holding  that  minors  can  neither 
waive  nor  abandon  their  homestead 
rights  ;  Johnson  v.  Gaylord,  41  Iowa,  362, 


367  ;  Showers  v.  Robinson,  43  Mich.  502; 
Farrow  v.  Farrow,  13  Lea,  120,  124,  hold- 
ing that  occupation  by  the  minor  children 
at  the  time  the  right  accrues  is  meant 
by  the  statutory  requirement  "  occupy- 
ing the  same  "  ;  Rhorer  v.  Brockhage, 
86  Mo.  544,  548. 

3  Smith  V.  Chenault,  48  Tex.  455,  461 ; 
McGrath  v.  Sinclair,  .55  Miss.  89,  93; 
Deere  r.  Chapman,  25  111.610;  Helm  v. 
Helm,  30  Gratt.  404  (holding  that,  where 
a  husband  died  without  leaving  children, 
and  not  having  claimed  a  homestead,  the 
widow  is  not  entitled  to  such),  406;  Es- 
tate of  Lessassier,  34  La.  An.  1066. 

4  Brown  v.  Keller,  32  111.  151,  154; 
Weber  v.  Short,  55  Ala.  311,  318  (over- 
ruling Pizzala  v.  Campbell,  46  Ala.  35, 
which  held  that  a  homestead  right  could 
not  exist  in  leasehold  estate). 

5  Brooks  V.  Hyde,  37  Cal.  366,  372, 
commenting  on  Calderwood  v.  Tevis,  23 
Cal.  335,  which  denies  homestead  protec- 
tion to  property  wrongfully  possessed ; 
see  also  Jones  v.  Hart,  62  Miss.  13. 

«  Smith  V.  Smith,  12  Cal.  216,  223; 
Randal  r.  Elder,  12  Kans.  257, 261 ;  Stamm 
V.  Stamm,  11  Mo.  App.  598. 

■^  McClurken  c.  McClurken,  46  111.  327, 
330. 

f  Smith  V.  Uzzell,  61  Tex.  220. 


95 


"WHAT  CONSTITUTES   THE   HOMESTEAD. 


201 


holder  or  beneficiary  of  the  legal  title  ;i  while  in  others  the  right 
is  not  allowed  to  attach  until  the  owner  has  the  legal  title.^ 
Whether  the  homestead  may  be  supported  by  an  estate  held 
jointly,  or  in  common,  or  in  partnership  with  others,  is  held  dii- 
ferently  in  different  States,  and  the  authorities  conflict  sometimes 
in  the  same  State.  The  subject  is  exhaustively  treated  in  Thomp- 
son's Avork  on  Homesteads  and  Exemptions.^  In  Arkansas  the 
widow  and  minor  heirs  of  a  tenant  in  common  are  entitled  to  a 
homestead  out  of  the  common  estate.* 

The  right  transmitted  to  the  surviving  members  of  Law  of  tiie 
the  family  is  determined  by  the  law  as  existing  at  the  dece.i'ent'f 
time  of  the  death  of  the  person  from  wliom  it  de-  tSnt'o?™'' 
scends ;   no  subsequent  change  of  the  law  will  affect  homestead. 
their  rights.^     But  as  to  creditors,  it  must  be  remem-  j^.  ^^^^  ^^^  ^^^^_ 
bered  that  their  rights  cannot  be  impaired  after  the  it">s  not  im- 

"  pairpfl  after 

debt   is   contracted  ;   so   that   a  homestead    or  other  creation  of 
exemption  law  is  in  derogation  of  the  Constitution  of 
the  United  States,  in  so  far  as  it  attempts  to  withdraw  from  the 
reach  of  the  creditor  property  which  was  within  his  reach  before  ;  ^ 


1  Allen  V.  Hawley,  66  111.  164,  168; 
Blue  V.  Blue,  38  111.  9,  18  ;  Macmanus  v 
Campbell,  37  Tex.  267;  McKee  v.  Wil- 
cox, 11  Mich  358,  361 ;  Fyffe  v.  Beers,  18 
Iowa,  4,  11 ;  Doane  v.  Doane,  4(3  Vt.  485, 
493;  Cheatham  v.  Jones,  68  N.  C  153; 
Hartman  v.  Munch,  21  Minn.  107  ;  Tar- 
rant 0.  Swain,  15  Kans.  146,  149;  Me- 
Cabe  ('.  Mazzuchelli,  13  Wis.  478,  482 
In  Alabama  the  homestead  may  be 
claimed  without  regard  to  the  nature  or 
character  of  tlie  title,  whether  legal  or 
equitable,  or  of  the  estate,  whether  in 
fee,  for  life,  or  for  years  :  Tyler  v.  Jewett, 
82  Ala.  93. 

2  Thurston  v.  Maddocks,  6  Allen,  427, 
428 ;  Holmes  v.  Winchester,  infra  ;  Garaty 
1-.  Du  Bose,  5  S.  C.  493,  499 ;  but  later 
South  Carolina  decisions  seem  inclined 
to  follow  the  weight  of  authority,  and 
liold  tliat  there  may  be  a  homestead  in 
land  lield  by  an  equitable  title  :  Munro 
V.  Jeter,  24  8.  C.  29,  36 ;  Ex  parte  Kurz, 
24  S.  C.  468,  471. 

8  §  180  e^  seq.  See  also  Smyth,  Home- 
stead &  Exemp.,  §  120  pt  seq. ;  Snedecor 
V.  Freeman,  71  Ala.  140  ft  seq.;  Sims  v. 
Thompson,  39  Ark.  301,  304 ;  Holmes  v. 


Winchester,  1.38  Mass.  542 ;  Trowbridge 
V.  Cross,  117  III.  109;  Titzgerald  v.  Fer- 
nandez, 71  Cal.  504,  507. 

*  Ward  V.  Mayfield,  41  Ark.  94,  rely- 
ing on  Greenwood  v.  Maddox,  27  Ark. 
648,  660,  in  which  there  is  a  collection  of 
cases  pro  and  con  on  the  general  question 
of  homesteads  of  tenants  in  common  ;  fol 
lowed  in  Sentell  v.  Armor,  35  Ark.  49,  50, 
and  Sims  v.  Thompson,  30  Ark.  301,  305. 

°  Register  v.  Hensley,  70  Mo.  180, 194 
Yeates  v.  Briggs,  95  III.  79,  83  ;  Taylor 
V.  Taylor,  53  Ala.  135;  Munchus  v.  Har- 
ris, 69  Ala.  500.  508;  Slaughter  v.  Mc 
Bride,  60  Ala.  510;  Emmett  v.  Emmett, 
14  Lea,  369,  370;  Davidson  v.  Davis,  86 
Mo  440.  But  as  to  the  manner  of  as- 
serting and  contesting  the  right,  the 
statute  at  the  time  governs :  Dossey  v. 
Pitman,  81  Ala.  381,  383. 

t'  Gunn  V.  Barry,  15  Wall.  610,  621, 
reversing  same  case,  44  Ga.  351,  353; 
Munchus  V.  Harris,  supra;  Slaughter  ;■. 
McBride,  su/>rn  ;  Cochran  v.  Miller,  74 
Ala.  50,  57  ;  Blum' v.  Carter,  63  Ala.  235, 
237  ;  De  Witt  v.  Sewing  Machine  Co  ,  17 
Neb.  533  ;  Hosford  v.  Wynn,  22  S.  C.  o09, 
310;  Davis  v.  Dunn,  74  Ga.  30, 


202  EXEMPTION    OB"   THE    HOMESTEAD.  §  96 

although  it  was  held,  formerly,  that  a  State  law  divesting  a  vested 
riaht  was  not  for  that  reason  unconstitutional.^  In  North  Caro- 
Una  it  is  held,  notwithstanding  the  decision  in  Giinn  v.  Barry, 
that  it  is  immaterial  whether  the  judgment  debts  were  contracted 
prior  or  subsequent  to  the  date  of  the  homestead  law ;  tlie  defend- 
ant is  still  entitled  to  the  exemption.^ 

Where  the  law  requires  a  declaration  of  a  debtor's  intention 
to  hold  certain  property  as  a  homestead  to  be  recorded,  the 
making  and  recording  of  such  declaration  by  a  widow,  after  the 
debtor's  death,  will  not  protect  the  homestead  against  debts  con- 
tracted by  the  deceased  husband.^  And  see,  on  this  point,  the 
discussion  of  the  effect  of  incumbrances  on  the  homestead  of 
widow  and  children.^ 

§  96.  Homestead  Rights  of  the  Widow.  —  The  rights  of  the 
widow  to  the  property  constituting  her  homestead  are  to  be  dis- 
Homestead  tinguishcd  according  to  the  nature  of  her  relation  to 
erfteidiir^'  ^^^^  Same.  If  she  be  the  owner  of  the  property  in  fee, 
fee,  which  she  may  occupy  as  the   head  of  a  family  or 

otherwise,  the  law  makes  no  distinction  between  her  and  home- 
stead tenants  in  general,  either  as  to  the  liability  of  such  property 
for  her  own  debts,  or  as  to  any  incidents  affecting  her  right  to  the 
or  in  the  Same.     But  if  the  property  passed  to  her  from  her 

homestead  of     deceased  husband,  not  hv  devise  or  the  law  of  descent, 

deceased  ■>  .-  _ 

husband.  or  as  dowcr,  but  by  the  statute,  so  as  to  be  enjoyed 

by  her  as  a  homestead,  she  holds  such  property  exempt  from  the 
claims  of  creditors,  her  late  husband's  as  well  as  her  own,  and 
mostly,  also,  against  her  husband's  heirs.  This,  as  has  been 
shown,  is  the  law  in  most  States,^  giving  her  the  enjoyment  of  the 
homestead,  whether  there  be  a  child  or  children  or  not,  either  fur 
the  period  of  her  natural  life,  or  as  long  as  she  may  remain  un- 
married, subject  to  the  cotenancy  of  minor  children.  If  there  be 
no  children  at  all,^  or  no  minor  children,'^  she  takes  the  homestead 

1  Watson  V.  Mercer,  8  Pet.  88,  110;  tache  v.  Rodaquest,  11  Bush,  42,  4(;  ; 
Beers  v.  Haughton,  9  Pet.  329,  .359.  See  Rliorer  v.  Brockhage,  13  Mo.  App  8'.i7, 
Thomp.  on  Homest.,  §  10.  affirmed  86  Mo.  544;  Groover  v.  Brown, 

2  Edwards  v.  Kea'rsey.  74  N.  C.  241,  69  Ga.  60,  64;  Allen  v.  Russell,_39  Oli. 
243,  citing  numerous  earlier  cases.  St.  ;i36 ;  Gay  v.  Hanks,  81  Ky.  552. 

3  Reinhardt  v.  Reinhardt,  21  W.  Va.  ^  Estate  of  Ballentine,  45  Cal.  690, 
76,  82  ;  Wray  v.  Davenport,  79  Va.  19,  25.  699  ;    s.  c.  Myr.  86  ;    Keyes  v.  Hill,  30 

4  Post,  §  100.  Vt.  759,  765;    Brown  v.  Brown,  68  Mo. 

5  Ante,  §  94.  388  ;    Yoe  v.   Hanvey,  25   S.  C.  94,  97  ; 

6  Moore  v.  Parker,  13  S.  C.  486,  489;  Riley  v.  Smith,  5  S.  W.  R.  (Ky.)  869. 
Glover  v.  Hill,  57  Miss.  240,  242;  Eus- 


§  96  HOMESTEAD   RIGHTS    OF   THE    WIDOW.  203 

as  the  reinaining  constituent  of  the  family  for  whose  protection 
the  law  is  intended.  In  some  States,  however,  this  Exceptions  ia 
view  is  not  deemed  warranted  by  the  language  of  the  '"'"*^  ^''*"='- 
constitution  or  statute  ;  it  has  been  held  in  North  Carolina,  that 
a  widow  is  not  entitled  to  the  homestead  where  the  husband  left 
adult  or  minor  children;^  nor  where  he  left  minor  children,  but 
no  debts,  the  homestead  law  being  intended  to  furnish  protection 
against  creditors,  but  not  against  heirs.^  So  in  Alabama,^  Geor- 
gia,-*  Illinois,  and  Michigan,^  the  widow  is  denied  the  right  of 
homestead  as  against  heirs,<^  or  their  assigns.'  In  Iowa,  either 
spouse  may,  upon  the  death  of  the  other,  occupy  the  homestead, 
regardless  of  the  question  which  was  the  owner  of  the  fee,  and 
whether  there  was  issue  or  not ;  ^  but  in  Missouri,  if  the  wife  be 
the  owner  and  die,  no  homestead  descends  to  either  husband  or 
minor  children.*^  In  Wisconsin  the  exemption  continues  after  the 
owner's  death,  not  only  in  favor  of  the  widow  and  children,  but 
of  devisees  also,  and  heirs.^^ 

The  widow  may  also  hold  the  homestead  property  as  the  rep- 
resentative of  minor  children,  or  as  having  become  the  head  of 
the  family  upon  the  death  of  her  husband.  In  such  widow's  home- 
case,  whatever  may  be  the  effect  of  her  acts  upon  her  ^S  oTth?*^ 
own  rights  to  or  interest  in  the  homestead,  she  cannot  family, 
waive,  renounce,  release,  or  in  any  manner  affect  the  interest  of 
the  children  secured  to  them  by  the  statute.^i     As  against  credi- 

1  Wharton  v.  Leggett,  80  N.  C.  10'.),  homestead  allowance  in  value,  it  cannot 
171 ;  Savior  c.  Powell,  90  N.  C.  202.  An  be  sold  in  partition  proceedings  :  lb., 
act  of  the  legi^^lature  extending  the  home-     p.  626 

stead    right   was  held    unconstitutional :  ^  Turner  v.  Bennett,  70  111.  263,  267  ; 

Wharton  v.  Taylor,  88  N.  C.  280.  Eggleston  v.  Eggleston,  72  III.  24 ;  Son- 

2  Hager  v.  ^ixon,  69  N.  C.  108,  110.  tag  r.  Schmisseur,  76  111.  541. 

3  Thornton  v.  Thornton,  45  Ala.  274.  "  Fight  v.  Holt,  80  111.  84. 

4  Kemp  r.  Kemp,  42  Ga.  523,  520.  »  Burns  v.  Keas,  21  Iowa,  257,  258; 
(Neither  widow  nor  children.)  Nicholas  i-.  Purczell,  21  Iowa.  265;  Dodds 

5  Robinson  ;;.  Baker,  47  Mich.  610;  i-.  Dodds,  26  Iowa,  311.  In  this  State 
the  court  intimate,  however,  that  the  the  widow  is  not  entitled  to  both  dower 
widow  should  have  her  dower  and  home-  and  homestead  ;  hence,  if  the  homestead 
stead  right  saved  to  her  in  the  homestead  be  either  sold  upon  the  widow's  applica- 
land  whenever  it  can  be  done  consistently  tion,  or  assigned  to  her  in  fee  as  dower, 
with  justice:  p.  624;  Patterson  v.  Patter,  she  occupies  her  own  homestead,  and  no 
son,  49  Mich.  176.  Neither  widow  nor  longer  the  one  coming  to  her  from  her  de- 
children  are  entitled  to  the  homestead  ceased  husband  by  reason  of  his  death  : 
riirlit  unless  the  estate  is  insolvent  and  Meyer  v.  Meyer,  23  Iowa,  359,  373. 

in''  debi  :  Zoellner  v.  Zoellner,  53  Mich.  ^  Keyte  v.  Peery,  25  ^[o.  App.  304. 

621);  where  the  right  attaches,  and  tiie         i"  Johnson  «.  Harrison,  41  Wis.  3Sl,  .'^85. 
estate    is    indivisible   and    exceeds    the         ^  JVIiller  v.  Marckle,  27  111.  402,  404; 


204  EXEMPTION    OF   THE    HOMESTEAD.  §  96 

tors,  the  right  of  possession  is  in  a  minor  child  of  the  deceased, 
whether  the  mother  is  legally  the  widow  or  not ;  i  and  where  the 
statute  does  not  allow  dower  and  homestead  in  the  same  estate, 
she  may  either  waive  or  hold  her  dower,  as  to  herself,  and  claim 
the  homestead  in  behalf  of  her  children.^  But  acting  for  herself 
alone,  she  may  bind  herself  by  any  acts  of  omission  or  commission, 
in  the  same  manner  as  any  other  person  sui  juris  ;  she  is  bound 
in  a  partition  proceeding,  if  she  fail  to  claim  her  homestead,  by 
the  decree  rendered,  and  her  right  to  such  is  thereby  barred.^ 

It  seems  hardly  necessary  to  mention,  that  neither  a  woman  not 
lawfully  married,^  nor  a  wife  who  prior  to  her  husband's  death  has 
been  notoriously  unfaithful  to  him  and  is  not  a  mem- 
ri^htnescend  bcr  of  liis  family  at  the  time  of  his  death,^  or  has 
mcmbeTof'the  abandoned  him,^  nor  one  who  has  been  divorced,"  can 
family.  claim  a  homestead  against  the  husband's  real  estate. 

But  where  a  wife,  whose  husband  has  abandoned  her,  has  secured 
But  may  if  wife  a  homcstcad  under  the  statute  providing  for  such 
be  divorced  for  ^iQ  will  bc  entitled  to  such  homestead,  although 

the  husband  s      ^        ^ 

fault.  si^e   subsequently  obtained  a  divorce  from  her   hus- 

band.^ Nor  does  a  wife  lose  her  homestead  rights  if  she  leaves 
her  home  by  reason  of  the  husband's  cruelty  ;9  and  in  an  action  by 
her  to  recover  lands  claimed  as  homestead,  if  the  defendant  allege 
that  she  of  her  own  wrong  had  deserted  her  husband,  she  may 
show  that  she  left  him  because  of  his  cruelty,  although  such  facts 
were  not  alleged  in  the  pleadings.i^ 

Plate  V.  Koehler,  8  Mo.  App.  396,  398 ;  ^  Dickman  v.  Birkhauser,  16  Neb.  686 ; 

Sliowers  v.  Robinson,  43  Midi.  502,  51.3;  Duke   v.  Reed,  64   Tex.  705,   713  ;    nor 

Gatton    V.   Talley,   22    Kans.   678,    682;  can  a  liusband  claim  a  liomestead  in  his 

Johnston  v.  Turner,  29   Ark.   280,  292;  wife's   property  after    abandoning    her: 

Harmon  v.  Bynum,  40  Tex.  324,  326.  Hector  v.  Knox,  63  Tex.  613. 

1  Hence,  where  the  decea.sed  left  one  '^  Stamm  r.  Starnm,  11  Mo.  App.  598; 
minor  cliild,  the  allowance  to  the  widow  Wiggin  r.  Buzzell,  58  N.  H.  329,  330; 
and  child  cannot  be  assailed  by  creditors  even  if  for  her  husband's  fault:  Staid  v. 
on  the  ground  that  the  alleged  widow  Stahl,  114  111.  375.  But  a  divorce  a 
was  not  the  lawful  wife:  Lockhart  v.  wensa  et  thoro  will  not  debar  her  riglit : 
White,  18  Tex.  102,  109.  Castlebury  v.  Maynard,  95  N.  C.  281,  285. 

2  Adams  v.  Adams,  46  Ga.  630,  631.  8  Blandy  v.  Asher,  72  Mo.  27,  29 ;    so 

3  Wright  I'.  Dunning,  46  111.271,275;  in  the  community  property,  wher^  the 
Hoback  ;;.  Hoback,  33  Ark.  399,  404.  wife  obtains  a  divorce  and  the  custody 

4  Owen  V.  Bracket,  7  Lea,  448;  and  of  the  children,  she  retains  a  homestead 
though  living  at  the  time  the  debt  was  during  her  life:  Tiemann  v.  Tiemann,  34 
created  witli  the  man  she  afterwards  Tex.  5-22,  525;  Vanzandt  v.  Vanzandt, 
marries,  on  her  premises  :  Rock  v.  Haas,  23  111  536,  542. 

110  111.  528,  534.  9  Keyes  v.  Soanlan,  63  Wis.  345. 

s  Estate  of  Coraeto,  Myr.  42,  44.         .         ^  Bradley  v.  Deroche,  7  S.  W.  R.  779. 


§  97        HOMESTEAD    AS    AFFECTED    RY    WIDOW's    DOWER.  205 

111  Illinois  it  is  hold  that  one  person  cannot  constitute  a  faniil\ , 
nor  a  person  and  his  or  her  children  permanently  separated  fioiu 
him,  and  hence  cannot  claim  a  homestead  ;  ^  nor  a  woman  hav- 
ing once  been  married,  surviving  the  husband,  having  no  issue, 
and  acquiring  title  to  property  after  death  of  the  husband.^ 

§  97.  The  Homestead  as  affected  by  the  Widow's  Do-wer. — At 
common  law  the  widow  is  entitled  to  the  usufruct  during  her  life- 
time of  one  third  of  all  the  real  estate  of  which  the  hus-  ^        ,  , 

Dower  belongs 

band  was  seised  during  the  coverture,  without  regard  to  tiie  widow 

n        .  1-11  1-  absolute!  v; 

to  the  existence  of  minor  children,  or  the  condition  homestead  only 
of  decedent's  family .^  This  principle  is  substan-  Surviving "  '"^' 
tially  embodied  in  the  statutes  of  the  several  States.  ^'^""'>'- 
The  purpose  of  the  homestead  acts  is  to  secure  a  home  for  the 
family,  including  the  widow  within  the  scope  of  its  beneficial  intent 
only  in  so  far  as  she  may  represent,  or  constitute  a  member  of,  the 
family.  It  is  therefore  a  question,  whether  the  widow  is  intended 
to  enjoy  the  benefit  of  both  these  provisions  cumulatively,  or 
whether  her  claim  to  or  acceptation  of  the  one  excludes  her 
interest  in  the  other.  In  most  of  the  States  this  question  is 
determined  by  the  statutes  themselves ;  and  as  these  statutes  giving 
differ  from  each  other,  so  a  different  conclusion  is  adcTitwn'to'" 
reached  in  the  different  States  by  the  courts  called  ^^^wer. 
upon  either  to  construe  doubtful  phraseology  of  statutes,  or  to 
announce  the  principle  governing  where  the  statutes  are  silent. 
In  Alabama,*  Illinois,^  Massachusetts,*^  Michigan,'^  Missouri,^  Ne- 
braska,^ New  Ilampshire,^'^  Tennessee,^^  Yermont,^^  Virginia,i3  and 
Wisconsin,^*  the  right  of  homestead  is  held  to  be  cumulative  to 

1  Rock  r.  Haas,  110  111.  528,  533.  and  of  warranty  :  Tirrel  v.  Kenney,  1.37 

2  Ibid.  Mass.  30 ;  but  if  she  obtains  an  assign- 
8  See  as  to  dower,  poxt,  §  105  et  seq.  ment  of  dower  in  tlie  same  land,  and  con- 
*  McCuan  v.  Turrentine,  48  Ala.  68,  veys  her  interest  to  another,  she  thereby 

70,   citing   earlier   Alabama   cases;    but  waives  and  relinquishes  her  right  of  home- 
only  as  against  creditors  ;  for  unless  the  stead  :  Bates  r.  B.ites,  '.)"  M.iss.  392,  .S05. 
widow  prove  the  estate  to  be  insolvent,  ■■  Showers  r.  Robinson,  43  Mich.  502, 
she  will  get  merely  her  dower  :  Thornton  510. 
V.  Tiiornton,  45  Ala.  274,  275.  s  Gragg   v.  Gra^ff,  65  Mo.  343,  345 ; 

5  Walsh   I'.   Reis,  50  111.  477;   60  111.  Seek  r.  Haynes.  08  Mo.  13,  17. 

277,  281 ;  Hall  v.  Harris,  113  111.  410.  9  Guthman  v.  Guthman,  18  Neb.  98. 

«  Cowdrey  v.  Cowdrey,  131  Mass.  186,  i^  Burt  i-.  Randlett,  59  N.  H.  130. 

i88,  citing  earlier  Massachusetts  cases;  "  Merriman  v.  Lacefield,  4  Heisk.  200, 

conveyance    "  in    order    to    release    her  222;  Jarman  v.  Jarman,  4  Lea,  ()71. 

rights    under  the    homestead   exemption  i-  Chaplin  v.  Sawyer,  .S5  Vt.  286,  290. 

act "  does  not  bar  her  dower,  although  i3  Scott  v.  Cheatham,  78  Va.  82.  83. 

the  deed  contain  full  covenants  of  seisin  "  Bresee  v.  Stiles,  22  Wis.  120,  126. 


206  EXEMPTION   OP   THE   HOMESTEAD.  §  98 

and  independent  of  dower,  so  that  a  widow  may  have  both  ;  while 
in  Iowa,i  Georgia,^  and  North  Carolina,^  she  is  put  to 
quiring  her  to    her  clectiou  to  take  one  or  the  other,  but  is  not  enti- 
^  '^^^'  tied  to  both.     In  Florida  she  takes  no  interest  in  the 

homestead,  except  such  as  may  be  included  in  her  dower.'*  Tlie 
wife's  release  of  dower,  in  an  ante-nuptial  contract,  does  not  affect 
her  right  to  a  homestead  in  the  husband's  property  after  his 
death  .5 

§  98.  The  Widow's  Right  to  sell  the  Homestead.  —  Whether  the 
widow  can  assign,  convey,  or  sell  her  right  to  the  homestead,  is  a 
There  can  be  matter  of  somc  doubt,  and  the  authorities  are  not  har- 
Tere  exenll)-  Hionious.  The  language  of  the  statute  securing  the 
t'o"-  right  to  the  widow  must  be  decisive,  of  course,  and  in 

many  instances  leaves  no  doubt  in  this  respect;  but  it  is  not 
always  clear  enough  to  enable  courts  to  reach  a  conclusion  with- 
out recourse  to  construction.  If  the  right  to  the  homestead  con- 
sists of  the  mere  exemption  from  compulsory  sale  for  debts,  or 
even  of  a  present  right  to  possession  as  against  heirs,  it  seems  to 
result  that  the  right  ceases  as  soon  as  the  owner  thereof  abandons 
the  homestead,  or  surrenders  possession  to  a  grantee,  and  then 
the  owner  of  the  fee  is  entitled  to  possession.^  In  such  case  a 
sale  would  pass  no  right  whatever  to  the  vendee,  because  the  great 
object  of  the  law,  to  secure  a  fixed  home  for  the  family,  would  be 
defeated  by  permitting  the  alienation  of  that  home.''  It  is  held 
^  , ,,     .  , ,     in  Kansas,  however,  that  a  sale  by  the  widow  of  the 

But  the  right  '  '  "^ 

of  the  widow      homcstcad  before   its    abandonment   as  such  confers 

against  heirs  .i.iiiji  -r 

may  be  con-  upou  the  vcndcc  the  right  to  hold  the  property  tree 
^^^'^  ■  from  all  debts  of  the  deceased  husband  (except  such 

as  are  not  excluded  by  the  homestead  law),  although  the  property 
be  afterward  abandoned  by  the  widow  and  children.^  Where 
the  statute  creates  a  new  estate,  which  is  given  to  the  widow,  in 

1  Stevens  v.  Stevens,  50  Iowa,  491  ;  ^  McDonald  r.  Crandall,  43  111.  231, 
Whitehead  v.  Conklin,  48  Iowa,  478.  238 ;  Eldridge  v.  Pierce,  90  111.  474,  480, 

2  Adams  v.  Adams,  46  Ga.  630.  citing  numerous  Illinois  cases ;  Barber  v. 

3  Watts  V.  Leggett,  66  N.  C.  197,  201 ;  Williams,  74  Ala.  331,  333. 

but  if  the  homestead  is  laid  off  in  the  '  Garibaldi  v.  Jones,  48  Ark.  230,  237 ; 

lifetime  of   the  husband,  she  may  take  Whittle  v.  Samuels,  54  Ga.  548,  550.     It 

dower  in  the  remaining  estate:  McAfee  seems,  however,  that  no  one  except  minor 

V.  Bettis,  72  N.  C.  28,  30.  children  can    question  the  validity  of  a 

4  Brokaw  v.  McDougall,  20  Fla.  212,  widow's  sale  of  the  homestead:  Drake  v. 
224  ;  Wilson  v.  Fridenburg,  19  Fla.  461.  Kinsell,  38  Mich.  232,  237. 

5  Mack  V.  Heiss,  90  Mo.  578,  582.  8  Dayton  v.  Donart,  22  Kans.  256,  270. 


§  99  HOMESTEAD   RIGHTS   OF   MINOR   CHILDREN.  207 

derogation  of  tlio  rig-hts  not  only  of  creditors,  but  also  of  heirs 
and  devisees,  there  the  enjoyment  of  such  estate  includes  the 
power  to  transfer,  lease,  or  sell  it,  and  hence  the  widow's  vendee 
or  assignee  takes  the  same  title  which  slie  had.^  A  fortiori,  the 
right  of  alienation  exists  where  the  statute  confers  the  property 
upon  the  widow  in  fee,  or  by  such  absolute  title  as  the  husband 
held  before  his  death.^ 

A  distinction  has  also  been  drawn  between  the  debtor's  volun- 
tary exchange  of  exempt  property  for  property  not  exempt,  and 
such  exchange  for  other  property  also  exem})t.^  Such  a  distinc- 
tion can  throw  but  little  direct  light  on  the  subject  under  consid- 
eration, which  is  not  the  rights  of  homestead  tenants  in  general, 
but  of  those  conferred  by  the  death  of  the  head  of  a  family  ; 
but  is  of  interest  in  emphasizing  the  dual  capacity  in  which  a 
widow  may  hold  homestead  rights.  As  to  the  power  to  alienate 
the  homestead  during  the  lifetime  of  both  parents  of  a  family, 
see  the  remarks  of  Judge  Thompson  in  his  work  on  Homesteads 
and  Exemptions,  which  throw  great  light  on  the  nature  of  the 
widow's  right  in  this  respect,  and  his  diligently  collected  authori- 
ties on  this  point.* 

§99.    Homestead  Rights   of  Minor  Children.  —  Children   during 
the  period  of  their  legal  infancy  are  the  peculiar  objects  of  the 
protection  intended  by  the  homestead  laws;  while  in  Minor  children 
some  of  the  States  a  widow  is  denied  a  homestead  EisiSin 
against  the  claims  of  heirs,^  minor  children  are  en-  **''  states, 
titled  to  such  in  all  the  States  in  which  homestead  laws  exist, 

i  Eldridge  v.  Pierce,  supra,  distinguish-  Cal.  374,  378;  Mack  r.  Heiss,  90  Mo.  578, 

ing  between  a  statute  creating  a  new  es-  588. 

tate,  and  one  securing  only  an  exemption  :  -  Thus  it  is  held  in  Illinois,  tliat  the 

p.  480 ;    White  >\  Plummer,  90  III.   394,  homestead   descending  lO  the  surviving 

399,  Mr.  Justice  Craig  dissenting  on  the  husband   or   wife   is  a  freeliold    estate : 

ground  that  the  statute  docs  not  intend  Snell  v.  Snell,   123  111.   403,  406,   which 

more  than  a  mere  exemption:    p.  400;  thej^  may  lease  for  any  term  not  extend- 

Plumraer  v.  Wliite,  101  111.  474.    In  Aliens-  ing  beyond  liis  or  her  life,  or  convey  by 

worth  ('.  Kimbrough,  79  Ky.  o32,  tiie  rule  deed  after  it  lias  been  set  out:  White  r. 

is  stated  to  be,  that,  where  the  homestead  Plummer,  90  111.  siiprn  ;  Browning  i'.  Har- 

right  is  derivative,  the  legal  title  is  in  the  ris,  99  111.  456,463  ;  but  not  before  :  Best 

heirs,  subject  to  the  right  of  occupancy ;  v.  Jenks,  123  111.  447,  459. 
but  where  it  is  original,  tlie  title  is  in  the  ''  Schneider  v.  Bray,  59  Tex.  668,  670, 

party  claiming  the  homestead,  witli  the  citing  numerous  cases;  Watkins  i\  Davis, 

right  to  dispose  of  it  as  well  as  its  pro-  61  Tex.  414,  416. 
ceeds.     See  also  Holbrook  v.  Wightman,  *  Thomp.  on  Homest.,  §§  452-534. 

31  Minn.  16S.   170;  Watkins  v.  Davis,  01  &  See  ante,  §  97. 

Tex.  414,  416;  Graham   i-.    Stewart,   68 


208  EXEMPTION   OF   THE   HOMESTEAD.  §  99 

whether  the  father,  the  mother,  or  both  parents  have  died.  Tims 
it  has  been  held  that,  upon  the  death  of  a  man  who  had  acquired 
a  plantation  and  lived  upon  it,  while  his  wife  and  children  lived  in 
another  State,  the  homestead  right  existed  in  his  children,  although 
the  wife  died,  and  neither  she  nor  the  children  had  ever  lived  upon 
the  plantation.^  Upon  the  death  of  the  owner  of  a  homestead 
leaving  cliildren,  some  of  whom  are  of  age  and  one  a  minor,  it 
vests  alone  in  the  minor  child  until  its  majority  ;2  and  the  guar- 
dian of  one  minor  child  is  as  much  the  head  of  a  family,  so  as  to 
entitle  him  to  the  homestead  and  exemption,  as  if  the  family 
embraced  more  than  one  minor  child.^  That  minor  children  do 
not  lose  their  homestead  rights  in  consequence  of  an  abandon- 
ment of  the  premises  or  residence  elsewhere,  has  already  been 
mentioned.* 

The  distinction  between  the  personal  rights  of  the  widow  as 

such,  or  considered  as  a  constituent  member  of  the  family,  and  the 

authority  vested  in  her  as  the  representative^  or  head^ 

Widow  cannot        ,.  r        -i  i    i        i        .     •  •    i  -     •  i.    •    • 

deprive  them  01  a  family,  must  be  kept  m  sight  m  ascertaining 
by  her  act.  whether  her  acts  in  respect  of  the  homestead  are 
binding  upon  the  minor  children  or  not.  Where  the  homestead 
rights  are  given  to  the  children,  or  the  widow  and  children,  or  to 
the  family,  it  is  obvious  that  no  release,  waiver,  or  abandonment 
by  the  widow  can  deprive  the  children  of  their  rights,  if  there  be 
a  practical  necessity  or  occasion  to  assert  them.^  Although  the 
widow's  interest  in  the  homestead  may  cease  upon  her  marriage, 
yet  the  rights  of  her  minor  children  are  not  thereby  affected.^ 
So  where  the  husband  succeeds  to  the  homestead  as  tenant  by  the 
curtesy  consummate,  if  he  desert  his  family,  it  continues  in  favor 
of  any  minor  child  residing  upon  the  premises^     In  North  Caro- 

1  Johnston  v.  Turner,  29  Ark.  280.  Ware,  80  Mo.  363 ;  Rhorer  r.  Brockhage, 

'■^  Simpson  v.  Wallace,  83  N.  C.  477,  13  Mo.  App.  397,  401,  404,  affirmed  86 

481,  citing  earlier  North  Carolina  cases.  Mo.  544. 

3  Rountree  v.  Dennard,   59  Ga.  629,  6  Heard  v.  Downer,  47  Ga.  629,  631 , 

630;  Little  v.  Woodward,  14  Bush,  585,  Rogers  v.  Mayes,  84  Mo.  520,  holding  tiiat 

588;  Meacham  i>.  Edmonson,  54  Miss.  746,  ejectment    would    lie   on   behalf   of  the 

749 ;    Hudson   v.    Stewart,   48  Ala.  204,  mmor  against  his  mother's  vendee. 
206.  ■^  Laws  of  111.  1871-72,  p.  478,  §  2,  chan- 

<  Ante,  §  95;  Farrow  v.  Farrow,   13  ging  the  law  as  held  in  Wolf  v.  Wolf,  67 

Lea,  120.  111.  55,  56,  that  between  a  father  and  the 

5  Miller  v.  Marckle,  27  111.  402,405;  minor  children  the  question  of  homestead 
Harmon  v.  Bynum,  40  Tex.  324,  326 ;  could  not  arise.  It  is  now  held  that  the 
Johnston  v.  Turner,  29  Ark.  280,  292;  homestead  right  of  a  minor  child  is  para- 
Wilson  V.  Fridenburg,  19  Fla.  461,  471  ;  mount  to  the  husband's  curtesy  :  Loeb  v. 
Shelton  v.  Hurst,  16  Lea,  470;  Roberts  v.  McMahon,  89  III.  487,  490. 


§  100       HOJIESTEAD  EIGHTS   OF    WIDOW    AND   CHILDREN.         209 

lina  it  lias  been  held  that  where  a  guardian  ad  litem  failed  to 
interpose  the  minor  children's  claim  to  the  homestead  in  a  pro- 
ceeding by  an  administrator  to  sell  the  real  estate  of  his  intestate 
for  the  payment  of  debts,  the  purchaser  at  the  administrator's 
sale  nevertheless  takes  subject  to  the  homestead  rights  of  the 
children. 1 

Lawful  children  by  a  former  husband  of  a  woman  who  lived 
with  the  decedent  many  years,  but  was  not  married  to  him,  are 
not  entitled  to  a  homestead  in  decedent's  lands,  although  he  rec- 
ognized them  as  his  children  in  his  homestead  declaration  and 
described  himself  as  the  father  of  a  family  comprising  them,  but 
had  not  legally  adopted  thcm.^ 

Some  curious  and  intricate  complications  involving  the  home- 
stead rights  of  children  and  widows  arising  out  of  successive 
marriages,  are  disposed  of  in  the  cases  of  Pressley  v.  Robinson,^ 
and  Putnam  v.  Young.* 

§  100.    Homestead  Rights   of  "Widow  and  Children  as  affected  by 
Incumbrances.  —  The  statutes  of   most    States  provide  that  the 
homestead  exemption   shall  not  apply  against  debts  Homestead 
created  in  the  purchase  or  erection  of  the  homestead,  [^"venlor^f'^* 
or  against  mortgagees  under  mortgages  duly  entered  I'en; 
into  by  both  husband  and  wife.     That  the  homestead  property  is 
liable  for  the  purchase  money  for  which  the  owner  became  in- 
debted in  acquiring  it  is  not  only  just,  but  inevitable,  since  upon 
any  other  condition  its  acquisition  would  become  impossible  in  all 
or  most  cases  in  which  the  purchaser  has  not  sufficient  means  to 
pay  the  full  price  at  once.    It  is  equally  apparent  that  such  home- 
stead descends  to  the  surviving  family  subject  to  the  vendor's 
lien,  and  to  the  claims  of  those  who  furnished  money,  materials, 
or  labor  for  its  erection.^     And,  generally,  the  home-  to  liens  which 
stead  descends  charged  with  such  debts  of  the  de-  ab^e'^a^'aj^l'sr 
ceased  owner  as  could  have  been  enforced  against  it  the  deceased, 
in  his  lifetime,  but  discharged  of  any  which  could  not  have  been 

1  Allen  V.  Shields,  72  N.  C.  50-4,  506.  2  Romero's  Estate,  17  Pac.R.(Cal.)  434. 

Kodnian,  J.,  comments  severely  upon  the  ^  57  Tex.  453. 

practice  of  leaving  the  rights  of   minor  ^  57  Tex.  4G1. 

children  to  the  protection  of  a  guardian  ^  Jh^?,  §95;  Farmerr.  Simpson,  6  Tex. 

ad  liti=m  appointed  upon  the  suggestion  of  803,  310;  Clements  r.  Lacy,  51  Tex.  150, 

the  adverse  party:  "  Too  often  such   an  159;    Commercial    Bank    r.    Corbett,   5 

appointment    is,    to    use    the    language  Sawy.  543,   547 ;    Fournier  c.  Chisholm, 

of  an  old  lawyer  quoted  by  Blackstone,  45  Midi.  417;  Palmer  v.  Simpson,  09  Ga. 

committere  agnnin  hipo."  792,  798. 

VOL.    I.  —  14 


210  EXEMPTION   OF   THE   HOMESTEAD.  §  100 

SO  enforced.^  But  it  is  held  in  Texas,  that  a  deed  of  trust  to 
Otherwise  in  SGCure  a  dcbt  docs  uot  Operate  as  an  absohite  transfer 
some  States.  q£  ^^^^  property  to  which  it  refers,  and  is  in  legal  effect 
but  a  mortgage  with  power  of  sale ;  that  the  exercise  of  this 
power  must  be  sought,  after  the  debtor's  death,  through  and  by 
aid  of  the  court,  and  that  such  deed,  whatever  rights  it  secures 
to  the  creditor  during  the  debtor's  lifetime,  after  his  death  se- 
cures only  priority  over  such  claims  against  the  estate  as  by  the 
statute  it  is  entitled  to  in  the  course  of  administration  ;  from 
which  it  follows  that  funeral  expenses,  expenses  of  last  sickness, 
expenses  of  administration,  as  well  as  the  allowance  to  the  widow 
and  children  in  lieu  of  homestead  and  other  property  exempt  from 
forced  sale,  are  all  entitled  to  priority  over  such  deed  of  trust  or 
mortgage,  except  where  it  represents  the  vendor's  lien.  Hence 
the  existence  of  a  deed  of  trust,  although  joined  in  by  the  wife, 
is  no  bar  to  the  widow's  right  of  homestead.^  And  in  Louisiana 
the  mortgagor  of  property  exempt  as  a  homestead  is  allowed  to 
sell  it  free  from  the  mortgage,^  and  to  defend  the  homestead 
against  the  claims  of  a  prior  mortgagee.*  In  Virginia  the  home- 
stead exemption  does  not  protect  against  a  deinand  for  damages 
for  breach  of  promise  to  marry,  on  the  ground  that  such  demand 
is  not  a  debt,  but  a  quasi  tort.^ 

The  right  to  redeem  by  paying  off  the  mortgage  or  paramount 
debt  seems  plainly  to  follow  from  the  nature  of  the  homestead 
Right  to  re-       riirht  of  widow  or  children;^  and  if  the  administra- 

deem  b^'  pa}'-  '-' 

ing  off  the  debt,  tor  rcdccm  the  mortgage  with  assets  of  the  estate. 


1  Harpending  u.  Wylie,  13  Busli,  158,  2  McLane  i'.  Paschal,  47  Tex.  305,  369  ; 

162;   Rogers  r.  Marsh,  73  Mo.  G4,  69;  Robertson  r.  Paul,  16  Tex.  47-2  (f>iinoun- 

Moninger  t>.  Ramsey,  48  Iowa,  368  ;  Rein-  cing  the  law  as  above,  but  allowing  tlie 

hardt  v.  Reinhardt,  21  W.  Va.  76,  82  (on  creditor's   demand    as   being   a  vendor's 

the  authority  of  Speidel  v.  Schlosser,  13  lien);  Reeves  v.  Petty,  44  Tex.  2i9,  251 

W.  Va    686,  701,  in  which  it  is  decided  (refusing  to    decide  the  "  troublesome  " 

that  the  homestead  exemption  dates  from  question     as    to    the    homestead    rights 

tlie  time  of  recording  a  declaration  to  that  against  a  mortgagee);  Petty?;.  Barrett, 

effect  by  the  owner,  and  tliat  it  will  not  37  Tex.  84;  Blair  v.  Thorp,  33  Tex.  38, 

avail  against  debts  contracted  before  the  48  (approving  Robertson  v.  Paul,  supra)  ; 

recording  of  such  declaration,  in  favor  of  Batts  v.  Scott,  37  Tex.  59,  66;  Armstrong 

eitlier  the  husband,  liis  widow,  or  minor  r.  Moore,  59  Tex.  646,  648.    See  Thomps. 

children  after  his  death) ;  Warhmund  i\  on  Honiest.,  §  327. 

Merritt,  60  Tex.  24,  27  ;  Mabry  v.  Harri-  3  Van  Wickle  r.  Landry,  29  La.  An. 

son,  44  Tex.  286,  294;  Douglass  r.  Boyl-  330,  Spencer,  J.,  dissenting,  332. 

ston,  69  Ga.   186,  citing  earlier  Georgia  *  Fuqua  v.  Chiiffe,  26  La.  An.  148. 

cases  ;  Cook  v.  Roberts,  69  Ga.  742  ;  Tyler  ^  Burton  v.  Mill,  78  Va.  468,  481. 

V.  Jewett,  82  Ala.  93.  «  Norris  v.  Moulton,  84  N.  H.  392,  399. 


§  100      HOMESTEAD    RIGHTS   OF    WIDOW    AND    CHILDREN.  211 

they  take,  without  contrihutiou,  the  whole  estate;'  Init  if 
this  is  not  done,  the  widow  redeeming  will  stand  as  assignee  of 
the  mortgage  until  others  interested  shall  pay  their  legal  propor- 
tion.2  It  follows  that  the  widow  and  children  are  entitled  to  a 
homestead  in  the  equity  of  redemption  in  the  real  „^,^^^j^^^j 
estate  au-ainst  all  persons  except  the  mortgagee  and  riKht  in  equity 

~  '  .  '         .  .      of  redemption, 

his  assigns  ;3  and  that  if  the  equity  of  redemption  is 
acquired  by  the  mortgagee,  the  mortgage  debt  is  to  be  shared 
between  the  widow  and  him  in  the  proportion  of  the  value  of  the 
mortgaged  property  held  by  each.*     If  the  lands  are  encumbered, 
or  cannot  be  partitioned  without  material  injniy,  they  may  be 
sold,  and  the  homestead  set  apart  out  of  the  proceeds/'^     So  if  the 
homestead  be  destroyed  by  fire,  and  the  administrator  or  in  proceeds 
collect  the  insurance  thereon,  he  will  hold  the  money  «f  i"^"''*"^:^- 
as  trustee  for  the  widow,  creditors,  and  heirs,  and  the  widow  is 
entitled  to  the  use  of  the  insurance  money  for  life.^ 

A  contrary  view  has  been  reached  in  Missouri,  where  it  is  held 
that  the  statute  gives  a  homestead  in  land,  but  not  in  the  proceeds 
of  the  sale  of  land,  the  court  expressly  disclaiming  the  Different  rule 
applicability  of  the  equitable  rule  of  treating  money  as  "'  i^i'^-^oun. 
land  and  land  as  money;'  and  this  principle  was  applied  by  the 
Court  of  Appeals  to  the  case  of  a  widow,  refusing  her  any  share 
of  the  proceeds  of  the  sale  of  the  liomestcad  after  discharging 
the  mortgage  debt.^  But  where  the  land  is  sold  in  proceeding  for 
partition,  the  value  of  the  homestead  may  be  computed  according 
to  the  Northampton  tables,  and  the  value  paid  to  the  widow  and 
children  out  of  the  proceeds  of  the  sale.^ 

1  II, ij.  *  Norris   r.  Morrison,   45  N.   H.  490, 

2  Norris   v.   Morrison,  45  N.   H.   490,     501. 

499.  5  Estate  of  McCauley,  50  Cal.  544,  546 ; 

3  Norris  v.  Morrison,  45  N.  H.  490,  Jolinson  v.  Harrison.  41  Wis.  381,  385; 
498.  See  also  Raber  v.  Gund,  110  111.  580,  McTaggert  r.  Stnitli,  14  Rush,  414,  4U) ; 
589.  The  court  may  decree  other  lands  Jackson  v.  Reid,  32  Oh.  St.  443,  446 ; 
to  be  sold  before  that  on  which  tlie  home-  Merritt  r.  Merritt,  97  III.  243,  249 ;  Gar- 
stead  is  located:  La  Rue  v.  Gilbert,  18  ner  v.  Bond,  61  Ala.  84,  88;  Griffie  v. 
Kans.  220,  222;  Calmes  v.  McCracken,  8  Maxey,  58  Tex.  210,  216;  Swandale  v. 
S.  C.  87,  97,  100;  Homestead  Association  Swandale,  25  S.  C.  389. 

V.  Ensloe,  7  S.  C.  1 ;  Burton  v.  Spiers,  87  c  Culbcrtson  r.  Cox,  29  Minn.  309,  317. 

N.  C.  87,  showing  that,  upon  the  cessa-  "  Casebolt  v.  Donahlson,  67  Mo.  308, 

tion  of  the  homestead  right  by  sale  of     312;    Woerther  v.  Miller,  13  Mo.   App. 

567. 


the  property  under  the  deed  of  trust,  the 
debtor  would  be  entitled  to  tlie  exemp- 
tion of  any  of  his  property  to  an  equal 
^alue.  ''  Graves  i-.  Cochran,  68  Mo.  74,  76. 


debtor  would  be  entitled  to  tlie  exemp-  ^  Woerther  r.  Jliller,  13  Mo.  App.  567, 

tion  of  any  of  his  property  to  an  equal     570. 


212 


EXEMPTION   OF  THE   HOMESTEAD. 


101 


§  101.    Homestead  Rights   as  affected  by  Inconsistent  Disposition 
of  the  Estate  by  the  Deceased  Owner.  —  The  right  of  the  surviving 
widow  and  minor  children  to  the  homestead  premises 
is  obviously  paramount  to  that  of  the  deceased  hus- 
band or  father  to  dispose  of  them ;  else  it  would  be  in 
his  power  to  defeat  the  intent  and  purpose  of  these 
1     Hence  a  testamentary  disposition  of  the  homestead  estate 
inconsistent  with  the  rights  of  the  surviving  members 
of  the  family  is  void."^     The  homestead  estate  bears 
great  resemblance  to  dower  in  this  respect,  and  many 
governing   the  latter  are    applied  by  analogy  to   the 


Homestead 
rights  not  sub 
ject  to  testa- 
mentary 
disposition. 


laws.' 


Principles  gov 
erning  dower 
applicable  to 
homesteads. 


princi|)les 
former.^ 

It  may  be  stated,  also,  that  in  most  States  the   alienation  of 

,  homesteads  without  the  consent  of  both  husband  and 

Alienation  of  i            <•               i    • 

homestead  by  wife  IS  held  Unavailing  to  prevent  them  irom  claim- 
does  not  de-  ing  the  protection  of  the  homestead  law.^     But  where 


1  See  anie,  §  94  ;  Tliomps.  on  Homest., 
§544;  Eaton  v.  Robbing,  29  Minn.  327, 
329;  Jarman  v.  Jarnian,  4  Lea,  671. 

2  Kaes  V.  Gross,  92  Mo.  647,  659; 
Sclineider  v.  Hoffmann,  9  Mo.  App.  280; 
Eproson  v.  Wheat,  53  Cal.  715;  In  re 
Davis,  69  Cal.  458;  Runnels  v.  Runnels, 
27  Tex.  515,  519  ;  Bell  v.  Bell,  4  Southern 
R.  (Ala.)  189;  Succession  of  Hunter,  13 
La.  An.  257  ;  Brettun  r.  Fox,  100  Mass. 
2-34  ;  Valentine,  .J.,  in  Martindale  v.  Smith, 
31  Kans.  270,  273  ;  Brokaw  r.  McDougall, 
20  Fla.  212,  226  ;  Hendrix  v.  Seaborn, 
25  S.  C.  481. 

3  Per  Bakewell,  .T  ,  in  Dnudt  v.  Musick, 
9  Mo.  App.  169,  175  ;  Best  v.  Jenks, 
123  111.  447,  459  et  seq.  So  a  widow 
cannot  take  a  bequest  clearly  intended 
to  be  in  lieu  of  a  homestead,  in  addi- 
tion to  her  statutory  homestead,  hut 
must  elect  between  the  two  :  McCormick 
V.  McNeel,  53  Tex.  15,  22  ;  Meech  v. 
Meech,  37  Vt.  414,  419;  Davidson  v. 
Davis,  86  Mo.  440,  overruled  in  Kaes  v. 
Gross,  92  Mo.  647,  659,  on  the  ground  that 
the  statute  negatives  the  husband's  right 
to  compel  his  widow  to  elect;  but  ac- 
cepting letters  testamentary  under  a  will 
constituting  her  a  legatee  does  not  tend 
to  show  that  she  waived  her  statutory 
homestead,  if  the  will  does  not  clearly 
make  the  bequest  in  lieu  of  the  home- 


stead :  Sulzberger  v.  Sulzberger,  50  Cal. 
385,  387.  But  where  the  homestead  is  a 
mere  exemption  from  execution  for  debts 
there  is  no  occasion  for  election  by  the 
widow  :  Aken  v.  Geiger,  52  Ga.  407.  So 
the  wife's  right  to  homestead  is  held  to  be 
inclioate,  like  inchoate  dower,  until  it  is 
assigned  and  set  oif  in  severalty  :  Norris 
V.  Moulton,  .34  N.  H.  392.  397 :  Gunnison 
V.  Twitcliei,  .38  N.  H.  02,  66;  Tidd  v. 
Quinn,  52  N.  H.  341 ;  and  when  set  apart 
in  lands  encumbered,  the  widow  may  re- 
quire its  exoneration  by  sale  of  other 
property  to  pay  the  debt,  as  in  case  of 
dower  assigned  :  Burton  v.  Spiers,  87  N.  C. 
87,  93. 

4  Garner  v.  Bond,  61  Ala.  84,  87 ;  Al- 
ford  V.  Lehman,  76  Ala.  526;  Thimes  v. 
Stumpff,  33  Kan.  53 ;  Barber  v.  Babel,  36 
Cal.  11,  15;  Goodrich  v.  Brown,  63  Iowa, 
247  ;  Ayres  v.  Probasco,  14  Kans.  175, 190 ; 
Connor  v.  McMurray.  2  Allen,  202  ;  Am- 
plilett  V.  Ilibbard,  "29  Mich.  298,  304 ; 
Hoge  ?'.  HoUister,  2  Tenn.  Ch.  606;  Rog- 
ers c.  Renshaw,  37  Tex.  625  ;  Hait  v. 
Houle,  19  Wis.  472 ;  Ferguson  v.  Mason,  60 
Wis.  .377,  386  ;  Hall  r.  Harris,  113  111.  410 ; 
Cox  V.  Harvey,  1  Tex.  Unrep.  Cas.  268. 
But  in  Virginia  the  husband's  waiver  of 
the  homestead  riglit  is  held  to  bind  the 
widow  :  Scott  r.  Cheatham,  78  Va.  82,  87, 
citing  Reed  v.  Union  Bank,  29  Graft.  719, 


§  102  RIGHTS    AFFECTED    BY   ADMINISTRATION.  213 

a  liiisband  sells  the  huiiiL'stcad  without  the  consent  of  privewifeor 
his  wife,  and  the  wife  subsequently  acquires  it  under  ^/homestead" 
execution  against  him  on  a  judgment  for  alimony,  he  "o'''- 
and  his  vendee  are  estopped  from  claiming  the  homestead  as 
exempt,  as  against  hei-;^  nor  can  the  guardian  of  an  insane  widow, 
or  anybody  but  the  widow  herself,  waive  her  homestead  rights.^ 
So  the  widow^'s  right  to  the  homestead  is  not  affected  by  a  mort- 
gage in  which  slie  did  not  join.^  It  has  been  repeatedly  held, 
that  neither  the  minor  children's  nor  tlio  widow's  right  ^^ 

Nor,  generallv, 

to  the  homestead  can  be  barred  by  an  ante-nuptial  con-  a  nianiage 
tract.^  But  in  a  late  case  decided  in  Missouri  it  was 
held  that  by  an  ante-nuptial  contract  mentioning  a  waiver  of 
dower,  but  not  of  homestead,  the  widow  relinquished  her  dower 
but  not  her  homestead  rights,  thus  leaving  the  inference  that  a 
waiver  or  relinquishment  of  her  homestead  rights  would  have  been 
deemed  binding  upon  her.^ 

An  exception  to  the  absolute  right  of  the  widow,  as  against  a 
testamentary  disposition  of  the  homestead  by  her  deceased  hus- 
band, is  maintained  in  Mississippi,  where  the  statute  is  construed 
as  giving  the  right  to  an  exemptionist  to  dispose  of  the  property 
exempted  from  execution  by  law  ;  and  it  is  hold  that  such  prop- 
erty (including  the  homestead)  descends  only  in  case  of  intestacy, 
although  it  is  not  liable  to  be  sold  for  debts.^ 

§  102.  Homestead  Rights  as  affected  by  Admiuistratiou.  —  It 
follows  from  the  absolute  nature  of  homestead  rights,  that  the 
homestead  can  in  no  view  constitute  assets  in  the  hands  of  the 

which  holds  the  wife  hound  by  the  hus-  the   provisional   support  of  the  family. 

band's  waiver.     And  if  the  wife  volunta-  In  Iowa  it  was  Iield  that  the  words  "rights 

rily  joins  with  her  liusband  in  alienating  of  dower  and  inlieritance  "  in  a  marriage 

the  land,  she  loses  her  liomestead  right,  contract  do  not  include  homestead  :  Ma- 

though  the  husband  secretly  intends  so  haffy  r.  lMahaffy,08  Iowa,55,  G2.    In  Kan- 

to  reinvest  the  funds  as  to  defraud  her  of  sas   the  widow  and    minor  children  can 

her  homestead  rights:  Beck  i-.  Beck,  64  occupy  the  liomestead,  independent  of  an 

Iowa,   155,  Adams   and    Beck,  JJ.,   dis-  ante-nuptial  contract,  until  it  is  suscepfi- 

senting.  ble  of  partition  (on  the  widow's  remar- 

'  Keyes  v.  Scanlan,  03  Wis.  345.  riage  or  arrival  at  age  of  all  tlie  children)  : 

2  Katcliff  V.  Davis,  G4  Iowa,  467.  Hafer  i-.  Hafer,  33  Kan.  449.  464;  wlien 

8  White  V.  Curd,  5  S.  W.  R.  5.53.  subject  to  partition  and  distribution,  how- 

*  McMaliill  V.  MclMahill,  105  111.596,  ever,  her  contract  will  be  enforced  :  Hafer 

601,  citing  McGee  v.  McGee,  91  111.  548,  v.  Hafer,  36  Kan.  524. 

553,  distinguishing   between   dower  and  ^  Mack  v.  Heiss,  90  Mo   578,  582. 

homestead    in    this    respect.      See    also  ^  Norris  r.  Callahan,  59  Miss.  140,  142, 

Phelps  V.  Phelps,  72  111.  545,  drawing  a  citing  Turner  ?•.   Turner,  30  Miss.  428; 

similar   distinction   between  dower  and  Nash  v.  Young,  31  Miss.  134. 


214  EXEMPTION    OF   THE    HOMESTEAD.  §  102 

Homestead  not  administrator,  since  it  vests  in  the  widow  and  cliil- 
assets  in  ad-       ^j^.^j^  f^.^.^  f^-on^  tlic  husband's  debts,  differing  in  this 

niinistrator  s  t    r        i.^ 

Lands.  respect  even  from  the  property  allowed  lor  the  pro- 

visional support  of  the  family.^  Its  use  is  reserved  to  the  family 
during  the  whole  period  of  administration  ;  ^  the  authority  of  the 
probate  court  over  it  is  limited  to  segregating  it  from  that  part 
Sale  by  the  ad-  of  the  dccedcnt's  estate  which  is  subject  to  adminis- 
do'es  not  affect  tratiou  ;  whcH  that  is  done,  its  jurisdiction  ceases.^ 
the  homestead    fjence  a  salc  of  the  homestead  by  the  administrator 

rights  of  widow  "^  i  -i  i 

or  minors.  y,r[\\  ^ot  divcst  the  rights  of  the  widow  and  children, 
unless  it  is  made  to  pay  debts  contracted  before  the  homestead 
was  acquired,  or  any  privileged  debts  to  which  it  may  be  sub- 
ject ;  4  and  in  such  case  the  burden  of  proof  that  the  homestead 
was  liable  for  such  debts  is  upon  the  purchaser.^ 

In  most  States  when  the  right  of  homestead  occupancy  ceases 
by  the  death  of  the  widow  and  the  majority  of  the  children, 
Eights  of  cred-  the  estate  passes  to  the  heirs,  or  becomes  subject 
is  homestead  ^^  ^^^  claims  of  Creditors,  as  though  no  intervening 
ceases.  homcstead  right  had  existed.*^      If  the  intervention 

of  the  homestead  has  prevented  a  creditor  from  recovering  his 
debt,  the  usual  rule  against  delay  in  subjecting  real  estate  to 
the  payment  of  debts  does  not  apply.'  In  some  of  the  States  the 
land  may  at  once  be  sold,  if  necessary  to  pay  the  debts,  subject  to 
the  right  of  occupation  by  the  widow  and  children  ;S  but  in  others 
such  sales  are  strongly  objected  to  and  promptly  denied,  because 
they  tend  to  sacrifice  the  interests  of  all  parties  concerned,  since 
"  but  few  purchasers,  not  venturing  on  a  mere  speculation  in 

1  Sossaman  v.  Powell,  21  Tex.  664,  ^  Rogers  v.  Marsh,  73  Mo.  64,  69; 
666,  approved  in  Hanks  i'.  Crosby,  64  Showers  i'.  Robinson.  43  Mich.  502,  507. 
Tex.  483;  Carter  v.  Randolph,  47  Tex.  «  Thouip.  on  Homest.,  §548,  and  au- 
376,  379 ;  Estate  of  Tompkins,  12  Cal.  thorities  ;  Chalmers  v.  Turnipseed,  21 
114,  120;  Baker  v.  State,  17  Fla.  406,  S.  C.  126,  138,  140;  Booth  v.  Goodwin, 
409.  29  Ark.  633,  636;   Taylor  v.  Tliorn,  29 

2  O'Docherty  v.  McGIoin,  25  Tex.  67,  Oh.  St.  569,  574. 

72.  ■?  Bursen  v.  Goodspeed,  60  111.  277, 281 ; 

s  Estate  of  James,  23  Cal.  415,  418 ;  Wolf  v.  Ogden,  66  111.  224. 
Estate  of  Orr,  29   Cal.   101 ;   Estate  of  »  Lunsford    v.    Jarrett,   2   Lea,   579 ; 

Hardwick,  59  Cal.  292 ;  Cummins  v.  Den-  Poland  v.  Vesper,  67  Mo.  727,  729;  Ev- 

ton,  1  Tex.  Unrep.  Cas.  181,  184.  ans  v.  Evans,  13  Bush.  587  ;  MoCaleb  v. 

*  Sliuler  V.  Rogers.  64  N.  C.  289;  ante,  Burnett,  55  Miss.  83.  86;  McTaggert  v. 

§95,  p.  201,  notes  5  and  6;  Sabalot  y.  Pop-  Smith,  14  Bush,  414  ;  Allensworth  i;.  Kim- 

ulus,  31  La.  An.  854;  Trammell  v.  Neal,  brough,  79  Ky.  332;  Barrett  v.  Richard- 

1  Tex.  Unrep.  Cas.  51;  McCloy  v.  Arnett,  son,  76  N.  C.  429,  431  ;  Flatt  v.  Stadler, 

47  Ark.  445,  454.  16  Lea,  371. 


§103 


PROCEDURE   IN    SETTING   OUT. 


215 


which  they  supposed  they  had  niucli  to  gain  and  little  to  lose, 
would  buy  property  subject  to  such  au  iucuuibrance."  ' 

§  103.    Procedure  in  Probate  Courts  in  setting  out  the  Homestead. 
—  Where  the  homestead  right  of  the  widow  and  minor  children 
is  secured  to  them  by  the  statute,  it  vests  at  once  upon  Homestead 
the  death  of  the  owner,  without  preliminary  formali-  Sy;;',^^!^^*''^ 
ties  in  any  court.^     But  when,  for  any  reason,  it  be-  upon  th^  own- 
comes  necessary  to  set  apart  the  homestead  from  the 
remaining  real  estate  of  the  decedent,  so  as  to  designate  the  par- 
ticular parcel  or  tract  to  which  the  homestead  right  and  may  be  set 
attaches,  the  proceeding  may  generally  be  had  in  the  by 'tife*"probate 
probate  court  having  control  of  the  administration  of  *^""''t. 
the  estate.3     The  judgment  of  the  probate  court  is,  in  cases  where 
it  has  jurisdiction,  final  and  conclusive  unless  directly  attacked  ;  * 
but  the  application  may,  unless  exclusive  original  jurisdiction  is 
vested  in  the  probate  court,  be  made  in  the  first  in-  ^^  ^^^^  ^^ 
stance  to  a  court  of  plenary  jurisdiction  ;^  and  eject-  ?''4'^^'|j;[.^j^ 
ment  will  lie  to  recover  possession.*^    So  the  homestead 
may  be  ascertained  in  a  proceeding  to  foreclose  a  mortgage  upon 
property  including  an  unascertained  homestead." 


1  Brickell,  J.,  in  Rottenberry  v.  Pipes, 
53  Ala.  447 ;  Hinsdale  v.  Williams,  75 
N.  C.  430  ;  McCloy  u.  Trotter,  47  Ark.  445 ; 
Nichols  ('.  Sliearon,  49  Ark.  75,82;  H.art- 
man  v.  Schultz,  101  111.  437,  443,  citing 
earlier  Illinois  cases ;  in  Michigan  the 
right  to  sell  lands  subject  to  homestead 
rights  is  doubted,  but  the  sale  cannot 
be  impeached  collaterally  :  Showers  v. 
Robinson,  43  Midi.  502,  507;  Jolly  v. 
Lofton,  01  Ga.  154. 

■•2  Skouten  v.  Wood,  57  Mo.  380  ; 
Freund  v.  McCall,  73  Mo.  843,  846; 
Rogers  v.  Marsh,  73  Mo.  64,  69 ;  Wilson 
V.  Proctor,  28  Minn.  13,  15;  until  sever- 
ance the  widow  and  heirs  hold  as  coten- 
ants,  and  after  sale  by  the  administrator 
to  pay  debts,  the  purchaser  becomes  a 
cotenant  ;  and  if,  as  such,  he  purchase 
an  outstanding  title,  he  cannot  deprive 
her  of  the  homestead  therein,  but  she  will 
have  the  riglit  to  protect  it  by  contribut- 
ing her  share  of  the  original  incumbrance  : 
Jlontague  v.  Selb,  106  111.  49,  56. 

8  Coughanour  v.  Hoffman,  13  Pac.  R. 
(Idaho),  231  ;  McC.'uiley's  Estate,  50  Cal. 
544;   Mawson  v.  Mawson,  50  Cal.  539; 


Turner  r.  Whitten,  40  Ala.  530;  Thomp- 
son V.  Thompson,  51  Ala.  493 ;  Howze  t'. 
Howze,  2  S.  C.  229,  232  ;  Scruggs  v.  Foot, 
19  S.  C.  274;  French  v.  Stratton,  79  Mo. 
560;  Guthman  i:  Gutliman,  18  Neb.  98; 
Cummins  v.  Denton,  1  Tex.  Unrep.  Cas. 
181,  184. 

4  Cannon  >:  Bonner,  38  Tex.  487,  491 ; 
but  the  right  of  appeal  is  given  to  any 
person  interested  in  the  decree :  Byram 
v.  Byram,  27  Vt  295 ;  or  to  remove  the 
proceeding  to  a  higher  court  by  certiorari  : 
Connell  v.  Cliandler,  11  Tex  249,  252  ;  in 
Massachusetts  the  probate  court  has  no 
jurisdiction  where  the  right  is  disputed 
by  heirs  or  devisees:  Woodward  v.  Lin- 
coln, 9  Allen,  2.39. 

5  Runnels  r.  Runnels,  27  Tex.  515,  520  ; 
Andrews  r.  Melton,  51  Ala.  400;  Roff  v. 
Johnson.  40  Ga.  555,  557;  in  Alabama 
the  jurisdiction  formerly  vested  in  the 
probate  court  is  taken  away  by  act  of 
April  28,  1873:  Pettus  v.  McKinney,  56 
Ala.  41. 

6  Booth  r.  Goodwin,  29  Ark.  633,  637. 
T  Coles  c.  Yorks,  31  Minn.  213. 


216  EXEMPTION   OF   THE   HOMESTEAD.  §  104 

No  particular  formality  is  required  to  give  jurisdiction  to  the 
probate  court,  excer)t  an  inventory  of  the  real  estate, 

rroceedings  in     ■*■  ^     \  ^  "^ 

probate  court  and  a  description  of  the  tract  or  parcel  of  land  consti- 
tuting the  homestead,  and  proof  of  the  insolvency  of 

the  estate  where  the  homestead  right  depends  on  such  fact ;  ^  and 
there  should  be  a  petition  praying  for  the  order.^    The 

at  any  time  _  '  r      j       o  ^ 

before  widow     application  may  be  made  at  any  time  before  a  sale  by 

lias  waived  or  t      •     •  ,        q  t  p,  -,       ,-,  -,^ 

barred  her  the  admmistrator,''  and  even  alter  a  sale  the  allow- 
^^^^ '  ance  may  be  made,"^  if  by  her  acts  the  widow  has  not 

waived  her  right,  or  estopped  herself.^  The  proceeding  in  the 
Such  proceed-  probatc  court  in  setting  apart  a  homestead  does  not 
l"ffeciThe"tkie  ^ff^ct  the  title  by  which  the  property  is  held,  but  is 
to  the  property,  gimply  to  withdraw,  for  the  benefit  of  widow  and  chil- 
dren, certain  assets  exempt  by  law  from  the  claim  of  creditors.^ 
Where  the  question  of  the  homestead  right  depends  upon  the  title 
to  the  property,  and  objection  is  made  in  the  probate  court,  it 
must  be  tried  in  another  forum  ;  ^  and  any  person  having  an 
adverse  interest  may  appear  to  defeat  the  application.^ 

§  104.  The  Rights  and  Burdens  connected  with  the  Enjoyment 
of  the  Homestead.  — The  ov.ncr  of  a  homestead  interest  in  lands 
has  the  right  to  protect  the  same  against  wrong  or 
strad^right^en!  injury  by  others  to  the  full  extent  of  his  ownership, 
ages^or  fny '  and  is  entitled  to  be  compensated  in  damages  for  any 
injury  thereto,  yioi^tion  of  such  right.  Thus  it  is  held  that  a  rail- 
road company  is  liable  for  the  damage  done  to  a  house,  by  the 
unlawful  construction  and  use  of  a  side  track  so  near  to  the  same 
as  to  cause  the  walls  to  shake  and  render  the  house  unfit  for  a 
dwelling,  to  the  widow  having  the  right  to  occupy  the  same  as 

1  Hudson  V.  Stewart,  48  Ala.  204,  208;  69;  Coniiell  v.  Chandler,  11  Tex.  249  ;  in 

Tanner  ;;.  Thomas,  71  Ala.  2.33 ;  Connell  Texas,  however,  the  application  in  solvent 

V.   Chandler,   11   Tex.   249.     The    court  estates  must  be  made  before  the  estate  is 

must  act  judicially   upon    the  commis-  ready  for  distribution  :  Little  v.  Birdwell, 

sioner's report:  Turnipseed i;. Fitzpatrick,  27  Tex.  688,  690. 
75  Ala.  297 ;   see  Dossey  v.  Pitman,  81  ^  Holden  v.  Pinney,  6  Cal.  234,  236. 

Ala.  381 ;  in  California  the  probate  court  ^  Estate  of  Burton,  63  Cal.  36  ;  Rich  v. 

does   not    acquire   jurisdiction    unless    a  Tubbs,  41  Cal.  34 ;   Scliadt  v.  Heppe,  45 

petition  is  filed :   Cameto  v.  Dupuy,  47  Cal.  433,  437 ;  Coffey  v.  Joseph,  74  Ala. 

Cal.  79.  271,  27.3. 

■^  Jordan  v.  Strickland,  42  Ala.   315;  '  Riggs  v.  Sterling,  51  Mich.  157,  159; 

McCuan  v.  Turrentine,  48  Ala.  68.  Cochrane  v.  Sorrell,  74  Ala.  310 ;  Farley 

3  Rottenberry  v.  Pipes,  53  Ala.  447,  v.  Riordon,  72  Ala.  128;  Estate  of  Chal- 
450;  Smith's  Estate,  51  Cal.  563,  565;  mers,  64  Cal.  77;  Estate  of  Burton,  64 
Ex  parte  Strobel,  2  S.  C.  309,  311.  Cal.  428. 

4  McCuan  v.  Turrentine,  48  Ala.  68,  ^  McLane  v.  Paschal,  62  Tex.  102, 105. 


§  104        RIGHTS   AND   BURDENS   OF   THE    HOMESTEAD.  217 

a  homestead,  ullhuugh  it  hud  not  been  ascertained  that  there 
were  no  debts  of  her  husband  for  which  the  homestead  might  be 
liable.^  In  another  case,  a  raih-oad  company  was  held  liable  for 
injury  to  the  land  and  crops  of  the  homestead  in  her  possession, 
caused  by  the  negligent  construction  of  the  railroad  across  a  creek, 
whereby  the  waters  of  the  creek  were  thrown  back  upon  her  lands.^ 
But  an  action  in  assumpsit  will  not  lie  for  use  and  occupation 
of  the  homestead  before  the  same  has  been  set  apart  in  a  proper 
judicial  proceeding.^ 

Together  with  the  rights  of  ownership,  the  law  also  casts  upon 
the  homestead  tenant  the  burden  of  paying  the  taxes  And  must  also 
upon  the  property  and  the  expenses  of  keeping  it  in  J^ 


bear  the  bur- 
eiis  of 


repair.     Hence  the  administrator  will  not  be  allowed  ownership. 
credit  in  his    administration   account  for  disbursements  to   pay 
taxes  and  repairs  of    the   homestead  property  occupied   by  the 
widow,  although  it  had  not  been  formally  selected  by  or  assigned 
to  her.* 

1  The  track  had  in  this  case  been  laid  Tex.  592,  599.  See  also  International  R. 
and  used  more  than  five  years  before  the  R.  Co.  v.  Tininiermann,  61  Te.x.  660,  662. 
death  of  tiie  husband ;  but  it  was  held  ^  McCuan  v.  Tanner,  54  Ala.  84. 
that  the  nuisance  was  a  continuous  one,  *  Wilson  c.  Proctor,  28  Minn.  13,  15. 
and  that  the  widow  was  entitled  to  dam-  The  costs  may  be  apportioned  according 
ages  for  the  injury  to  her  right  of  occu-  to  tlie  benetits  received:  Englehardt  v. 
pation  :  Cain  f.  Chicago,  R.  I.  »&  P.  li.  Co.,  Yung,  76  Ala.  5-34,  541.  The  homestead 
54  Iowa,  255,  259,  261  et  seq.  tenant  has  a  right  to  the  annual  interest 

2  The  widow  and  her  deceased  husband  or  income,  nor  should  she  be  held  respon- 
had  been  jointly  owners  of  the  homestead,  sible  for  any  diminution  in  the  corpus 
and  damages  were  awarded  to  the  widow  occasioned  by  the  legitimate  use  thereof, 
in  her  own  name  for  injury  to  the  land  or  for  loss  or  destruction  not  her  fault : 
and  crops  before  she  became  the  sole  Chalmers  v.  Turnipseed,  21  S.  C.  126, 
owner:  Railroad  Company  v.  Knapp,  51  140. 


218  ESTATES   OF   DOWER   AND   CURTESY.  §  105 


CHAPTER  XI. 

ESTATES    OF   DOWER    AND    CURTESY. 

§  105.  Nature  and  Purpose  of  Dower.  —  However  interesting 
and  instructive  it  might  prove,  the  task  of  tracing  to  its  inception 
the  custom  of  setting  apart  for  the  use  of  the  widow  a  portion  of 
her  husband's  lands  and  tenements  after  his  death  lies  beyond  the 
scope  of  the  present  treatise,  which  must  be  confined,  in  this  re- 
spect, to  a  brief  statement  of  the  principles  upon  which  this  form  of 

,    .,    the  devolution  of  property  rests.i    It  is  important,  how- 
Support  of  wife  r     L        J  1  .  1    1    T         .         1      i- 
and  her  young  evcr,  to  kuow  that  the  motivc  which  led  to  its  adoption 

original  pur-  into  the  couimon  law  of  England  was  the  intention  to 
pose  of  dower,    p^^^^-^jg  f^^.  |-|-^g  sustenance  of  the  wife  and  younger 

children  at  a  time  when  the  husband  and  father  could  no  longer 
minister  to  their  wants,  and  as  a  compensation  for  the  inability 
which  the  common  law  imposed  on  the  wife  to  acquire  property 
Dower  at  com-  during  covcrture.^  The  common  law,  in  accomplish- 
mon  law  meiit  of  this  purpose,  provides  that  the  widow  shall 

have  the  third  part  of  all  the  lands  and  tenements  whereof  the 
husband  was  seised  at  any  time  during  the  coverture,  to  hold  to 
herself  for  the  term  of  her  natural  life.^  The  significance  of  this 
secured  to  the  provision  is,  that  it  places  the  right  of  the  widow 
widow  beyond    ^evond    the   reach    of    the   husband,   for    her   right 

the  power  of  •'  r     i 

the  husband,      attachcs  to  "  all  the  lands  and  tenements  whereof  the 

1  Scribner,  in   his  able   work  on  the  Saxons,  and  was  adopted  by  the  Normans 

Law  of  Dower,  considers  the  attempt  to  as  one  of   the  legal  institutions  of  the 

trace  it  to  its  origin  a  fruitless  one,  and  land :  1  Scrib.  on  Dower,  8,9.    Blackstone 

cites  a  number  of  American  decisions  in  says  that  the  introduction  of  dower  has 

which  the  judges  indicate  the  same  view  :  by  some  been  ascribed  to  the  Normans, 

Nott,  J.,  in  Wright  v.  Jennings,  1  Bai.  L.  as  a  branch  of  their  local  tenures  (citinu' 

277,  278;  Lacy,  J.,  in  Hill  v.  Mitchell,  5  Wright,  192),  but  suggests  that  no  feudal 

Ark.  608,  610;  Catron,  C.  J.,  in  Combs  reason  can  be  given  for  its  invention,  for 

V.  Young,  4  Yerg.  218.     But  he  treats  his  that  it  was  first  introduced  in  that  sys- 

readers  to  a  very  interesting  chapter  on  tem  by  the  Emperor  Frederick  II.;  and 

this    subject,    referring    to    the    current  that  it  is  possibly  the  relic  of  a  Danish 

theories,  and  deducing  from  the  authori-  custom,    introduced    into    Denmark    by 

ties  that,  as  all  the  charters  coerced  by  Swein,   the   father   of   Canute.      2   Bla. 

the  English   people  from  the  princes  of  Comm.    129. 

the  Norman  line  recognize  dower  in  lands  ^  Banks   v.    Sutton,  2  P.   Wms.   700, 

as  an  existing  legal  right,  it  formed  one  702;  2  Bla.  Comm.  130. 

of  the    ancient    customs   of  the   Anglo-  ^  ^  Bla.  Comm.  129. 


§  106  DOWEll    IN    THE   SEVERAL   STATES.  219 

husband  was  seised  at  any  time  during-  the  coverture,"  in  which 
she  had  not  freely  relinquished  her  dower,  thus  protecting  her 
and  the  surviving-  family  against  the  caprice  as  well  as  the 
improvidence  of  the  husband.  The  law,  in  its  wise  precaution, 
devised  various  safeguards  to  counteract  the  husband's  abuse  of 
his  wife's  confidence  in  him  and  prevent  him  from  obtaining  her 
relinquishment  by  undue  influence.^ 

The  favor  with  which  dower  is  regarded  at  the  comuKJu  law 
has  by  no  means  abated  in  the  American  States.  On  the  con- 
trary, the  solicitude  for  the  protection  of  the  widow  ^  „ 

■J  '  ^  ^  Dower  equally 

and  minor  children  of  a  person  dying   has  induced  favomi  in 

.    ,  PI  .  America. 

considerable  extension  oi  the  right  oi  dower  in  sev- 
eral of  them,  beside  those  provisions  for  the  homestead  and  tem- 
porary support  of  the  family,  which  have  already  been  considered,^ 
and  a  preference  of  the  widow  over  the  next  of  kin  as  heiress.^ 
If,  possibly,  the  tendency  of  modern  legislation  is  toward  an 
extreme  in  this  direction,  which  may  encroach  upon  the  rights  of 
creditors,*  it  is  nevertheless  satisfactory  to  observe  the  trend  of 
public  consciousness  toward  a  recognition  of  the  family  as  an 
organic  element  of  the  State,^  and  the  earnestness  of  the  popular 
branches  of  State  governments  in  its  protection. 

§  100.  Dower  under  the  Statutes  of  the  Several  States.  —  The 
common  law  rule  as  to  the  extent  of  the  right  of  dower  is  retained 
in  most  of  the  States,  which,  bv  express  enactment,   , 

,  ,  .  states  securing 

secure  to  the  widow  the  enjoyment,  during  the  period  dower  as  at 

,    „  „  ,  .     1       f.      11     ,1       1         1         p        1  •    1      ji        common  law. 

of  her  life,  of  one  third  of  all  the  lands  ot  which  the 
husband  was  seised,  or  in  which  he  had  an  estate  of  inheritance, 
or  of  which  some  one  else  was  seised  to  his  use,  during  the  covert- 
ure, or  marriage,  and  to  which  the  Avidow  had  not  relinquished 
her  right  of  dower,  or  debarred  herself,  in  the  manner  and  for 
the  reasons  set  out  in  the  statute.  In  various  wordings,  the  rule 
is  substantially  so  laid  down  in  Delaware,^  Florida,"  Illinois,^  Ken- 

1  Note  the  various  statutory  enact-  tlie  exception,  pcrliaps,  of  claims  to  ances- 
nients  regulating  the  relinquishment  of  tral  estates,  no  class  of  persons  is  likely  to 
dower,  and  the  rigid  application  of  tliem  suffer  from  the  liherality  of  legislatures 
by  the  courts.  to  wife  and  children  but  creditors. 

2  Ante,  §§  77  et  seq.,  91  et  seq.  ^  See  ante,  §  6. 

3  Ante,  §  67.  ^  Laws,  1874,  p.  515,  §  6. 

4  1  Scrib.  on  Dower,  ch.  i.  §  ."4,  hints  "^  McClell.  Dig.  475,  §  1. 

that  others  than  lineal  descendants  have  ^  st.  1885,  ch.  41.     In  this  State,  ten- 

likewise  claims  upon  the  estate  of  the  de-  ancy    by    the    curtesy   is  abolished,   but 

ceased  by  the  ties  of  blood  and  the  laws  both  husband  and  wife  are  each  endowed 

of  nature.     It  seems,  however,  that,  with  of  one  third  of  the  lands. 


220 


ESTATES   OF    DOWER    AND   CURTESY. 


U06 


States  in  which 
dower  is  af- 
fected by  num- 
ber of  lineal 
descendants. 


tucky,^  Maiiie,^  Massachusetts,^  Michigan,^  Missouri,^  Nebraska,^ 
New  Jersey/ New  Yoi-k,^  North  Carolina,9.0hio,^^Oregon,^i  Rhode 
Island,^^  Virginia,^^  West  Virginia,^*  and  Wisconshi,^^  In  some 
of  the  States  the  widow  is  entitled  to  different  propor- 
tions, depending  upon  the  existence  or  absence  of  lineal 
descendants;  as  in  Alabama,^^  Arkansas,^*"  Delaware, 
and  Pennsylvania,^^  where  the  widow  is  entitled  to 
dower  in  one  half  of  the  lands  owned  by  the  husband  at  the  time 
of  his  death,  if  he  left  no  lineal  descendants,  and  to  one  third  if 
.    ,    J  there  be  such.     In  Georgia  ^^  and  New  Hampshire  ^'^ 

Dower  in  land  "  '■ 

of  which  hus-  ghe  takcs  dower  in  one  third  of  all  of  the  lands  of 
seised,  or  which  wliich  the  husband  died  seised,  or  which  came  to  him 
rffjiit  of  the"  ^"^  in  right  of  his  marriage;  and  in  Georgia  and  Ten- 
marriage.  nesscc  ^1  the  dwelling-housc,  except  in  cities  or  towns. 

Dower  in  land  is  not  to  be  valucd  in  computing  the  dower.     In  Con- 

of  which  hus- 
band died 
seised. 


necticut,^^  Tennessee,^^  and  Vermont,^*  the  widow  takes 
one  third  during  life  of  all  the  lands  of  which  the 
States  in  which  husband  died  seised.  In  the  States  of  California,^^ 
Colorado,2'3  Indiana,^^  lowa,^^  Kansas,^^  Minnesota,^*^ 
Mississippi,^^  Nevada,^^  and  Connecticut,^^  tenancy  by 


dower  and 
curtes}'  are 
abolished ; 


1  Gen.  St.  1887,  ch.  52,  §  2. 

2  Rev.  St.  188.3,  ch.  103,  §  1. 

3  Pub.  St.  1882,  p.  740,  §  3. 

4  2  Howell's  St.  1882,  §  5733. 

5  1  Rev.  St.  §  2186. 

6  Comp.  St.  1887,  ch.  2.3,  §  1. 

7  Rev.  1877,  320,  §  1. 

8  3  Banks  &  Bro.,  7th  ed.,  p.  2197,  §  1. 

9  Code,  1883,  §  2102. 

1"  Rev.  St.  1880,  §  4188. 

11  Code,  1887,  §  2954. 

12  Pub.  St.  1882,  6.37,  §  1. 

13  Code,  1887,  §  2267. 

14  Kelley's  Rev.  Stat.  1878,  ch.  70,  §  1. 

15  Rev.  St.  1878,  §  2159. 

i«  Code,  1886,  §  1894.  If  the  estate  is 
solvent;  if  insolvent,  she  takes  only  one 
third,  whether  there  are  children  or  not. 

1"  Dip.  1384,  §  2-592. 

18  Bright.  Purd.  Dig.  1883,  p.  631,  §  1. 
Expressed,  in  this  State,  to  be  "  in  lieu  of 
dower  at  common  law." 

19  Code,  1882,  §  1763.  The  dower 
attaches  to  all  the  lands  owned  during 
coverture  and  not  conveyed  away  by  him 
or  under  judicial  sale  during  his  life  : 
Hart  I'.  McCollum,  28  Ga.  478,  480;  but 
a  purchaser  at  sheriff's  sale  a/Cer  his  death 


cannot  defend  against  the  widow's  dower 
on  the  ground  that  the  husband  did  not 
die  seised  of  the  land :  Wiece  v.  Maibut, 
55  Ga.  613,  614. 

20  Gen.  L.  1878,  p.  474,  §  2. 

21  Vincent  v.  Vincent,  1  Heisk.  333, 
339 ;  Puryear  v.  Puryear,  5  Baxt.  640, 
642. 

22  Gen.  St.  1888,  §  618.  In  case  of 
marriages  before  1877  ;  see  infra. 

23  Thomp.  &  St.  St.  §  2398'. 

24  Rev.  L.  1880,  §  2215. 

25  Civ.  Code,  §  173. 

26  Gen.  L.  188.3,  §  10.39. 

27  Rev.  St.  1881.  §  2482.  The  act 
making  the  change  cannot  affect  existing 
contracts:  Wiseman?;.  Beckvvith,  90  Ind. 
185,  188. 

2?  Miller's  Rev.  Code,  1886,  §  2440. 

29  Comp.  L.  1885,  ch.  3-3,  §  28. 

3T  Gen.  L.  1875  (Session  Acts),  p.  74, 
§§  1-5 ;  giving  homestead  and  one  third 
of  other  lands  in  fee  simple.  See  Stat. 
1878,  p.  572,  §  1,  also  p.  564,  §§  2,  3. 

31  Rev.  Code,  1880,  §  1170. 

32  Comp.  L.  1873,  §  1.57. 

33  In  case  of  marriage  after  1877  ;  Gen. 
St.  1888,  §§  623,  2796. 


§  106  DOWER    IN    TUE   SEVERAL   STATES.  221 

the  curtesy  and  dower  are  abolished  by  statute;  in  frivinginhcrit- 
lieu  whereof  the  husband  and  wife  take  certain  shares  ""•^'^ '" '"•■"• 
under  the  statutes  of  descent  and  distribution,  usually  more  ad- 
vantageous, to  the  widow  at  least,  than  their  rights  under  the  law 
of  curtesy  and  dower.i  In  such  case  the  interest  of  the  widow 
docs  not,  iiowcvcr,  extend  to  land  owned  and  alienated  by  the  hus- 
l)and  during  coverture,  but  is  confined  to  that  which  he  owned 
at  the  time  of  his  death  ;2  and  the  principle  protecting  dower 
right  against  debts  incurred  during  the  husband's  lifetime  does 
not  apply .'^  In  Louisiana  the  common  law  doctrine  of  dower  has 
not  been  adopted,  but  there,  as  well  as  in  Texas  ^  (in  Dower  affected 
which  the  Spanish  law  prevailed  until  1839,  when  an  l^iun-fy'^o"'" 
act  "defining  dowers"  was  passed  by  the  Republic,  Property. 
but  repealed  on  February  5th  following,  leaving  the  old  law  in 
force  ^),  California,^  and  Nevada,^  a  species  of  })roperty  unknown 
to  the  common  law  is  recognized,  called  community,  a  term 
applied  in  the  French  law  to  the  title  or  ownership  of  the  property 
of  two  persons  who  are  intermarried.^  The  succession  of  this 
property  upon  the  death  of  either  the  husband  or  wife  excludes 
the  application  of  a  tenancy  by  either  curtesy  or  dower.  In  Mary- 
land the  statute  does  not  define  dower ;  but  it  is  provided  that  the 
statutes  of  descent  shall  not  be  construed  as  affecting  the  right 

1  See  ante,  §§  66,  67.  of  the  husbanrl  to  dispose  of  the  same  by 

2  Carr  r.  Brady,  64  Ind.  28,  establisli-     will  is  denied:  Beard  v.  Knox,  5  Cal.  252, 
ing  also  tlie  doctrine   that   it   is    in    tlie     2-5G. 

power  cf  the  legislature  to  take  away  an  ^  Hanna  v.  Palmer,  6  Col  156,  160. 
inchoate  right  to  dower,  on  wliicli  point  *  Rev.  St.  18R8,  art.  1653. 
former  Indiana  cases  are  cited.     But  the          '"  Dallam's    Dig.    82.       Husband   and 
legislature  cannot  impair  the  VL'sted  rights  wife  take  a  life  estate  in  one  third  of  the 
of  a  purchaser  from  the  husband;  the  property  of  the  other  spouse  deceased, 
widow  therefore  has  no  interest  in  such          ^  Civ.  Code,  §§  Ifil,  167,  1401,  1402. 
land  on  the   husband's  death,  occurring          "^  Comp.  L.  187o,  §§  152,  160,  161. 
after  the  cliange  in  the  law  took  effect:          ^  Poxt,  §  122.     "The  community  con- 
Taylor  i'.  Sample,  51  Ind.  423,  citing  to  sistsof  the  profits  of  all  the  effects  of  which 
same  effect  May  v.  Fletcher,  40  Ind.  575,  the  husband  has  tlie  administration  and 
and  Bowen  v.  Preston,  48  Ind.  367,  the  enjoyment,  either  of  right  or  in  fact,  of 
latter  case  referred   to  as  containing  a  the  produce  of   the  reciprocal   industry 
collection  of  the  authorities  on  this  point.  and  labor  of  both  husband  and  wife,  and 
In   California,    where   "  all   property,  of  the  estates  which  they  niaj'  acquire 
acquired  by  either  husband  or  wife,  ex-  during  the  marriage,  either  by  donations 
cept  such  as  may  be  acquired  by  gift,  be-  made  jointly  to  them   both,  or  by  pur- 
quest,  devise,  or  descent,  shall  be  common  chases,  or  in  any  other  similar  way,  even 
propertj',"  the  entire  control  of  which  is  although   the   purchase   be   oidy    in  the 
given  to  the  husband  with  absolute  power  name  of  one  of  the  two,  and  not  of  both  " : 
to  dispose  of  it,  and  upon  the  death  of  Code  La.  1870,  §  2402 ;  Clark  r.  Norwood, 
husband  or  wife  one  half  of  the  common  12  La.  An.  598. 
property  goes  to  the  survivor;  the  right 


222  ESTATES   OF   DOWER   AND   CURTESY.  §  107 

of  dower  ;^  consequently  the  right  exists  tliere  as  at  common 
law.2  It  was  so  in  Minnesota  before  the  statute  of  1875  abol- 
ished dower.3 

§  107.    Marriage  as   a  Requisite  to    Dower. — Marriage    is    self- 

evidently  an  essential  prerequisite  to  dower.     At  common  law 

marriages  not  solemnized  in  facie  ecdesice  are  held 

Mai-riage  in  '^  .    -,  .       ^     -i  a    ,\         ^     • 

church  indis-  not  to  coufcr  the  riglit  of  dower ;  *  the  obvious  reason 
dowtJi't  iom-  being  that  the  spiritual  courts  of  England,  which 
mon  law.  ^^^^^^  passcd  upou  the  validity  of  espousals  at  the  an- 

cient common  law,  refused  to  recognize  marriages  not  solemnized 
according  to  the  ritual  of  the  Established  Cliurch.  But  as  the 
legality  of  marriages  does  not  depend,  in  America,  upon  the  sanc- 
tion of  the  church,  whose  authority  binds  only  those  who  render 
a  voluntary  submission,^  it  follows  that  all  the  inci- 
sufficie']lt7n''^^  dents,  rights,  and  obligations  attach  to  a  marriage 
America.  recoguizcd  as  valid  in   law,  whether   solemnized  in 

church,  or  as  a  civil  contract  purely,  or,  as  is  sometimes  the  case, 
in  both  forms.  Hence  it  may  be  said,  that,  in  all  the  States  in 
which  dower  is  given  by  law,  it  follows  any  marriage  which  is 
held  to  be  lawful.*^ 

But  where  a  marriage  is  void  in  law,  although  entered  into  by 

the  female  in  the  most  perfect  good  faith  and  innocence,  she  is 

nevertheless,  among  otlier  harsh  consequences  attend- 

marrla^ris        ant  upou  an  uulawful    connection,  debarred  of   any 

void  ill  law;       ^^q^^qy  right.     The  most  common  instances  of  void 

1  Hinck.  Test.  L.  §  1264.  the    rule,    "  semper    prcesumifur    pro    ne- 

2  Chew  V.  Chew,  1  Md.  103,  172.  gante." 

3  Washburn  v.  Van  Steenwyk,  32  ^  Carmichael  v.  State,  12  Oh.  St.  553, 
Minn.  .336,  .347;  Guerin  v.  Moore,  25  555,  citing  the  celehrated  case  of  Dai- 
Minn.  462.  rj-mple  v.  Dalrymple,  2   Hagg.  Cons.  II. 

*  Bish.  on  Mar.  &  Div.  217  h;  1  Scrib.  54,  in  which  the  law  of  Scotland  is  re- 

on  Dower,  ch.  vi.  §  8  e/  scrj.     In  the  case  viewed   at  great  length  and    contrasted 

of  Queen  v.  Millis,  10  CI.  &  F.  534,  upon  with  the  English  law  on  this  subject,  and 

a  full  discussion,  a  marriage  between  a  quoting  from  Lord  StowcU  (Sir  William 

member   of   the   Established  Church   in  Scott)   this   passage:    "Marriage,  in  its 

Ireland   and   a   Presbyterian,  performed  origin,  is  a  contract  of  natural  law  ;  it 

by   a   regularly  placed   minister  of   the  may   exist   between    two   individuals   of 

Presbyterians  at  his  residence,  according  different  sexes,  although  no  third  person 

to  the  rites  of  the  Presbyterian  church,  existed  in  the  world,  as  happened  in  tlie 

was  held  insufficient  to  support  an  indict-  case  of  the  common  anc;estors  of  man- 

ment  for  bigamy,  after  cohabitation  be-  kind.     It  is   the  parent,    not   the   child, 

tween  the  couple  so   marrying,  and  one  of  civil  society.     In   civil   society  it  be- 

of  them,  during  the  lifetime  of  the  other,  comes  a  civil  contract,  regulated  and  pre- 

having  married  some  one  else.    The  de-  scribed  by  law,  and  endowed  with  civil 

cision    was  rendered  upon  an  equal    di-  consequences." 
vision  of  the  Lords,  under  application  of         ^  i  Scrib.  on  Dower,  cli.  vii.  §  1. 


§10' 


MAKRIAGE   AS    A    REQUISITE   TO    DOWER. 


223 


marriages  arc  those  in  which  one  or  both  of  the  parties  have  a 
husband  or  wife  by  a  former  marriage,  not  dissolved.  In  such 
case,  tlie  woman  can  have  no  dower,  for  she  has  not  been  a  wife.^ 
In  this  connection,  however,  it  must  be  remembered  that  no  pe- 
culiar ceremonies  are  requisite,  either  by  the  common  or  canon 
law,  for  the  valid  celebration  of  the  marriage.^  If,  therefore,  a 
man  and  woman,  whose  marriage  is  void  because  at  but  if  validated 
the  time  of  the  marriage  ceremony  one  of  them  had  J^;.,;^^f  ;V';.^  „^ 
a  spouse  by  a  former  undetermined  marriage  living,  husband,  and 

I  •'  COlltllilU'U   CO- 

continue  to  cohabit  and  recognize  each  other  as  bus-  i.ubHatiun, 

„  in,  dower  is  given. 

band  and  wife  after  the  death  of  such  first  spouse, 
this  will  either  constitute,  or  authorize  the  presumption  of,  a  valid 
marriage  between  them,  after  the  dissolution  of  the  former  mar- 
riage by  the  death  of  the  first  spouse.^  The  presumption  of  death 
arising  upon  the  absence  of  a  person  for  seven  years,  unheard 
from,  is  also  relied  on,  in  some  cases,  in  support  of  marital 
rights,  where  the  second  marriage  takes  place  after  the  expiration 
of  this  period;'^  and  courts,  as  a  general  thing,  exact  full  and 


1  Higgins  r.  Breen,  9  Mo.  407,  501; 
Smitli  V.  Smith,  5  Oh.  St.  32 ;  Smart  i'. 
Whaley,6  Sm.  &  M.  308,  312;  De  France 
V.  Johnson,  26  Fed.  Rep.  891  ;  Jones  v. 
Jones,  28  Ark.  19,  26,  liolding  that  proof 
of  cohahitation,  and  liolding  eacli  other 
out  to  the  world  as  husband  and  wife,  are 
not  sufficient  proof  of  marriage,  where 
at  the  time  the  marriage  is  alleged  to 
have  been  contracted  there  was  a  wife  by 
a  former  marriage  living,  not  divorced. 

2  2  Kent  Comm.  *86 :  "  The  Roman 
lawyers  strongly  inculcated  the  doctrine, 
that  the  very  foundation  and  essence  of 
the  contract  consisted  in  consent  freely 
given  by  parties  competent  to  contract. 
.  .  .  This  is  the  language  equally  of  the 
common  and  canon  law,  and  of  common 
reason." 

3  Donnelly  v.  Donnelly,  8  B.  Mon.  113. 
117,  adjudging  dower  to  tiie  wife  in  such 
case.  But  it  has  since  been  held,  in 
Kentucky,  under  a  statute  so  providing, 
that  all  marriages  are  void  "  when  not 
solemnized  or  contracted  in  the  presence 
of  an  authorized  person  or  society " : 
Estill  )'.  Rogers,  1  Bush,  62,  64 ;  Fenton 
V.  Reed,  4  John.  52.  In  Smith  v.  Smith, 
1  Tex.  621,  it  was  held  that,  under  the 
Spanish  law  (before  the  introduction  of 


the  common  law)  prevalent  in  Te.\as,  a 
marriage,  though  the  imshand  luighthave 
had  a  former  wife  living,  imposed  upon 
the  second  wife,  if  ignorant  of  this  fact, 
all  the  obligations  and  invested  her  with 
all  the  rights  of  a  lawful  wife,  so  long 
as  this  ignorance  continued ;  and  that 
under  the  Spanish  jurisprudence,  a  puta- 
tive is  converted  into  a  real  marriage  by 
the  removal  of  the  disability,  however 
that  may  be  effected.  See  also  Yates  v. 
Houston,  3  Tex.  433,  447 ;  Jackson  v. 
Claw,  18  John.  346,  340;  Adams  v.  Ad- 
ams, 57  iliss.  2t)7.  270,  commenting  on 
and  apparently  reversing  Ruudle  v.  Pe- 
gram,  49  Miss.  751,  and  Floyd  i-.  Calvert, 
53  Miss.  37,  all  arising  under  the  Missis- 
sippi constitution,  legalizing  the  marriage 
of  persons  not  married,  but  cohabiting  as 
man  and  wife. 

*  Woods  r.  Woods,  2  Bay,  476,  480. 
The  judges  were  unanimously  of  the 
opinion,  "  that  tlie  presumption  of  law 
in  support  of  marital  rights  was  much 
more  favored  than  a  presumption  against 
them,  especially  when  such  unfavorable 
presumption  went  to  bastardize  the  is- 
sue of  a  marriage  apparently  legal  and 
proper." 


224  ESTATES    OF   DOWER   AND    CURTESY.  §1^7 

satisfactory  proof  of  the  first  marriage,  where  it  is  sought  to  be 
interposed  as  a  defence  against  the  claims  of  the  wife.^ 

The  consent  of  a  free  and  rational  person  constitutes  an  esscn- 
.       tial  ingredient  of   the  marriage  contract ;   hence  the 

JIarnage  of  "  ° 

idiot  void.  marriage  of  an  idiot  is  void,^  and  the  same  rule  pre- 
So  of  an  insane  ^alls  where  either  of  the  parties  was  insane  at  the 
person;  ^jj^g  ^]^g  marriage  contract  was  entered  into.''^    That  a 

marriage  coerced  by  compulsion,  fear,  or  violence,  or  induced  by 
or  if  coerced  fraud  or  error,  is  voidable,  rests  upon  the  same  rea- 
mdS  bv  ^^^ '  *  ^^^  ^^  ^^^^  party  imposed  upon  so  elects,  he  or 
fraud.  '  q\iq  may  waive  the  wrong  and  thereby  render  the  mar- 
riage good.  Voluntary  coliabitation  after  discovery  of  the  fraud 
or  error,  or  the  removal  of  the  fear,  amounts  to  such  waiver.^ 

Marriages  between  persons  within  the  prohibited  degrees  of 
consanguinity  or  affinity,  between  persons  of  different  races,  or 
Marriages  pro-  wlicre  the  statutory  regulations  have  not  been  ob- 
hibited  by  law.  gg^ved,  or  either  of  the  parties  is  not  of  the  required 
age,  &c.,  are  also  held  void  or  voidable  under  the  provisions  of 
some  of  the  State  statutes,  the  details  of  which  cannot  be  consid- 
ered here.^  It  is  self-evident  that,  if  a  marriage  be  voidable,  but 
not  void,  the  wife  will  be  entitled  to  dower  if  it  be  not  dissolved 
during  the  lifetime  of  the  husband." 

The  validity  of  marriages  is  to  be  determined,  as  a  general 
proposition,  by  the  law  of  the  country  where  it  is  solemnized ;  if 
Validity  of  valid  there,  it  will  be  valid  everywhere  ;  if  void  there, 
mhSf bylaw''"  i*  i^  void  elscwherc^  Exceptions  recognized  are  po- 
of the  country    lyo-amous  and  incestuous  marriages;^  and  marriages 

where  solein-         •'  ~  piiii 

nized.  contracted  elsewhere,  in  violation  of  a  local  law,  by 

citizens  subject  to  such  law.^^ 

1  Hull  V.  Rawls,  27  Miss.  471.  ^  1  Washb.  R.  Prop.  *169,  §  2. 

2  1  Scrib.  on  Dower,  p.  123,  §  17 ;  M  Washb.  R.  Prop.  *170,  §  4,  citing 
Waymire  v.  Jetmore,  22  Oh.  St.  271,  273.       Story,  Confl.  of  L.,  §  113  ;  Clark  v.  Clark, 

"  Jenkins    v.   Jenkins,   2   Dana,    102  ;  8  Cush.  385 ;  Cambridge  v.  Lexington,  1 

Crump  V.  Morgan,  3  Ired.  Eq.  91,  94;  Pick.  505;  Putnam  i'  Putnam,  8  Pick.  433. 

Foster  v.  Means,  1  Speers  Eq.  569,  574  ;  See  Johnson  v.  Johnson,  30  Mo.  72,  88. 
Powell    V.  Powell,  18   Kans.    371,   377;  9  Story,  Confl.  of  L.,  §  113  a     But  only 

Stuckey  v.  Mathes,  24  Hun,  461.  if  incestuous  by  the  law  of  nature  :  Sut- 

i  Bassett   v.   Bassett,   9    Bush,    696;  ton  r.  Warren,  10  Met.  (Mass.)  451;  Ke- 

Tomppert  v.  Tomppert,  13  Bush,  326;  gina  ;;.  Chadwick,  11  Ad.  &  Ell.  (Q.  B.) 

Willard  v.  Willard,  6  Baxt.  297.  n.  s.  205. 

&  Hampstead  v.   Plaistow,   49   N.  H.         "  But  only  if  the  local  law  expressly 

84,  98.  invalidates  within  the  locality  the  niar- 

6  See  1  Washb.  R.  Prop.  *169  et  seq. ;  riage  contracted  elsewhere  in  violation  of 

1  Scrib.  on  Dower,  ch.  ill.  to  viii.  incl.  its  provision :  Brook  v.  Brook,  3  Sm.  & 


§  108  ALIENAGE    AS    BARRING   THE    DOWER    RIGHT.  225 

§  108.  Alienage  as  Barring  the  Dower  Right.  —  TllC  COmmoil 
law  disability  of  aliens  to  transmit  or  acquire  lands  by  descent 
renders  them  incapable  of  taking  as  tenants  in  dower.  ^^^^^  ^^  ^^.^^ 
It  is  accordiniiiy  laid  down  as  an  established  rule  at  age  on  right  of 
common  law,  that  "  if  a  man  takctli  an  alien  to  wife, 
and  dieth,  she  shall  not  be  endowed,"  and  also,  "if  the  husband 
be  an  alien,  the  wife  shall  not  be  endowed."  ^  Tliis  rule  is,  how- 
ever, rendered  almost  inoperative,  botli  in  England  and  the  United 
States,  by  reason  of  the  great  changes  in  the  law  affecting  the 
right  of  aliens  to  enjoy,  acquire,  and  transmit  property,  botii  real 
and  personal,  by  purchase,  devise,  and  descent.  This  subject  is 
treated  elsewhere,  in  connection  with  the  question  of  the  power 
of  aliens  to  devise  real  estate,^  to  which  the  reader  is  referred. 
There  are  now  but  few  States  in  which  alienage  continues  to  be  a 
bar  to  the  full  enjoyment  of  real  estate  in  all  respects,  although 
the  right  is,  in  some  of  them,  coupled  with  the  condition  of  resi- 
dence, declaration  of  intention  to  be  naturalized,  or  claim  of  the 
property  within  a  limited  period  of  time.  In  Wisconsin  the  statute 
distinguishes  between  resident  aliens  and  non-residents  (whether 
aliens  or  not)  in  respect  of  dower,  by  limiting  the  right  of  wo- 
men residing  out  of  the  State  to  take  dower  only  in  lands  out  of 
the  State  of  which  the  husband  died  seised.^  In  Michigan  and 
Nebraska  a  similar  distinction  exists  ;  and  it  is  held  in  these  States, 
that  the  non-residence  contemplated  by  the  statute  refers  not  only 
to  the  time  of  the  husband's  death ,*  but  also  to  the  time  of  the 
making  of  the  conveyance ;  so  that  in  either  event  she  is  not  enti- 
tled to  dower  in  the  lands  conveyed  by  the  husband  during  covert- 
ure.^ The  law  of  New  York  entitles  an  alien  to  dower  "  who  has 
heretofore  married,  or  who  may  hereafter  marry,  a  citizen  of  the 
United  States."  ^  Under  this  law  it  was  held  that  an  alien  widow, 
having  married  an  alien  prior  to  its  passage,  and  never  having 
resided  in  this  country  prior  to  her  husband's  death,  was  not  en- 

G.  481  ;  Commonwealth  r.  Fliint,  4  Cnsh.  party,"  as  annoimoed  by  .Judge  Story  : 

49,  50 ;  Putnam  v.  Putnam,  8  Pick.  433,  7  Cranch,  603,  619. 

434  -  '-inte,  §  19- 

1  1  Scrib.  on  Dower,  p.  152,  §  3,  citing  ^  Bennett  v.  Harms,  51  Wis.  251.  254. 

numerous  te.xt  writers,   and  tlie  case  of  *  Pratt  r.  Tefft,  14  Mich.  101,  200. 

Fairfax  v.  Hunter,  which  is  based  upon  ^  Ligare  r.  Scmple,  32  Midi.  438,  413 ; 

the  doctrine  "that  an  ahcn  can  take  lands  approved  and  followed  in  Atkins  r.  At- 

by  purchase,  though  not  by  descent ;  or  in  kins,  18  Neb.  474. 

other  words  he  cannot  take  by  tlie  act  *^  Laws,  184.5,  ch.  115,  §  3;  3  Banks  & 

of  law,  but  he  may  by   the  act  of  the  Bro.,  Rev.  St.  1882,  p.  2170,  §  3. 

VOL.  I.  — 15 


226  ESTATES    OF    DOWER    AND    CURTESY.  §  109 

titled  to  dower  in  the  lands  of  which  her  husband  died  seised  as  a 
citizen  of  the  United  States,^  notwithstanding  the  act  of  Congress 
providing  that  "  any  woman  who  might  lawfully  be  naturalized 
under  the  existing  hiws,  married  or  who  shall  be  married  to  a 
citizen  of  the  United  States,  shall  be  deemed  and  taken  to  be  a 
citizen  of  the  United  States."  ^  This  act  is  construed  as  apply- 
ing to  a  woman  married  to  a  person  who  was  at  the  time  of  the 
marriage  a  citizen  of  the  United  States,  and  that  the  subsequent 
naturalization  of  her  husband  worked  no  change  in  her  status. 

An  Alabama  case  decides  that  the  wife  of  an  Indian  is  not  dow- 
able  of  lands  selected  by  her  husband  under  the  treaty  between 
the  United  States  and  the  Creek  tribe,  and  by  him  sold;  not, 
however,  on  account  of  any  incapacity  of  the  widow  to  take 
dower,  but  because  the  title  of  the  deceased  husband  was  such  as 
would  not  support  dower  in  his  wife.^  In  Tennessee  the  alien 
widow  of  a  husband  who  had  settled  and  acquired  real  estate 
there  was  allowed  dower,  but  not  homestead.* 

§  109.  Misconduct  of  the  Wife  as  a  Bar  to  her  Dower.  —  At 
common  law  the  elopement  and  adultery  of  the  wife  did  not  oper- 
Aduiteryand  ate  as  a  bar  of  dower  ;^  nor  would  equity  refuse  to 
wKirdower  interfere  to  enforce  the  performance  of  marriage  arti- 
uiider  Statute     ^\q^  though  the  husbaud  might  have  proved  tliat  his 

of  Westmin-  jo  o 

ster.  wife  is  living  separate  from  him  in  a  state  of  adultery,'' 

But  by  tlie  Statute  of  Westminster  11.,^  if  a  wife  elope  from  her 
husband  and  continue  with  an  adulterer,  she  shall  be  barred  of  her 
dower,  unless  her  husband  willingly,  and  without  coercion  of  the 
Church,  reconcile  her  and  suffer  her  to  dwell  with  him.  That 
the  husband  consented  to  the  adultery,  having  bargained  and  sold 
the  wife  to  the  adulterer,  is  no  defence  to  her.^  But  adultery 
alone,  without  elopement  from  her  husband,  does  not  debar  her  of 
dower;  9  nor  elopement  alone  Avithout  adultery;  there  must  be  a 
(^oncurrence  of  both  elements  of  wrong.^^    No  crime  committed  by 

1  Burton  v.  Burton,  26  How.  Pr.  R.  M3  Edw.  I.  c.  34. 

474.  8  Although,  in  an  action  of  trespass 

"'  Act  Feb.  10,  1855;  10  St.  at  Large,  by  the  husband,  his  license  and  the  no- 

p.  664,  §  2.  toriously  lewd  character  of  the  woman 

3  Chinnubbee  v.  Nicks,  3  Port.  362.  may  be  proved  in  mitigation  of  damages  : 

4  Emmett  v.  Emmett,  14  Lea,  369,  373.  Coot  v.  Berty,  12  Mod.  232. 

5  2  Scrib.  on  Dower,  ch.  xviii.,  §  1,  cit-  9  Cogswell  v.  Tibbetts,  3  N.  H.  41,  42. 
ing  Hethrington  v.  Graham,  6  Bing.  135,  ^''  Siiaffer  v.  Richardson,  27  Ind.  122, 
lU  Kng.  C.  L.  31.  126,  citing  Graham  v.  Law,  6  U.  C.  C.  P. 

^  Seagrave  v.  Seagrave,  13  Ves.  4.3Q  810,  in  which  it  was  held  that  a  woman 
443.  who  first  deserted  her  husband  and  tiien 


§  109         MISCONDUCT    OF    WIFE   AS    A   BAR    TO    DOWER.  227 

tho  wife,  save  as  stated,  dejjrives  her  of  dower;  so  that  even  one 
convicted  of  being  accessory  to  the  murder  of  her  husband,  and 
imprisoned  for  life,  is  entitled  to  dower  in  his  estate.^ 

Tlic  substance  of  the  Statute  of  Westminster  is  held  to  be  the 
law  in  some  of  the  States,  whether  by  re-enactment,  or  as  adopted 
witli  ancient  English  statutes  generally ;  so  held  in  statute  of 
Indiana,^  Missouri,"^ New  Hampshire,*  North  Carolina,^  rL-enacted  or 
South  Carolina,^  Viroinia,'  and  West  Virginia.^     In  ^l^^^^j^,, 
others,  the  statute  is  held  not  to  be  in  force,  as  in  ^ot  in  force 
Delaware,^  Iowa,'"  Massachusetts,"  New  York,'^  and  "' ^'^ers. 
Rhode  lsland.i3 

Since  a  woman  can  have  dower  only  in  the  lands  of  a  deceased 
hisband,  the  question  arises  what  are  the  rights  of  a  woman  wlio 
has  been  divorced.  Lord  Coke  says,  "  Ubi  nullum  Divorce  for 
matrimonium,  ihi  nulla  dos^^  •,'^^  but  he  confines  the  "vife^enoraUy 
maxim  to  divorces  a  vinculo  matrimonii,  and  expressly  bars  her  dower, 
excepts  divorces  "  a  mensa  et  tJioro  only,  as  for  adultery."  In 
America  adultery  is  a  sufficient  ground  for  a  divorce  a  vinculo  ; 
and  if  that  is  granted  upon  the  husband's  petition,  the  adultery  or 
other  misconduct  of  the  wife  for  which  the  divorce  is  pronounced 
is  thus  made,  generally,  the  ground  debarring  her  of  dower.i^ 
This  subject  is  regulated  by  statute  in  most  of  the  States,  the 
prominent  tenor  of  which  is  to  allow  the  wife  her  dower  rights  in 
all  cases  in  which  the  divorce  is  granted  upon  her  petition,  and  to 
annul  it  where  it  is  granted  upon  the  husband's  petition,  with  dis- 
cretionary power,  in  many  instances,  in  the  court  trying  the  cause, 
to  dispose  of  all  property  questions  in  the  decree  of  divorce. ^^     It 

lived  in  adultery  was  not  thereby  barred  ^  Thomburg  v.  Thornburg,  18  W.  Va. 

of  lier  dower ;  Wiseman  v.  Wiseman,  73  522,  525. 

Tnd.  112,  113;  a  fortiori,  where  the  hus-  «  Rawlins  v.  Ruttel,  1  Houst.  224. 

band  deserts  the  wife,  and  she,  believing  ''  Smith   v.   Woodworth,  4    Dill.   584, 

liiin    dead,    marries   another  :    Payne   v.  587. 

Dotson,  81  Mo.  145.  "  Lakin  v.  Lakin.  2  Allen,  45. 

1  Owens  V.  Owens,  6  S.  E.  R.  (N.  C)  >-  Schiffer  r.  Pruden,  G4  N.  Y.  47,  40. 
794,  13  Bryan  v.  Bacheller,  6  R.  I.  543,  545. 

2  Gaylor  v.  McHenry.  15  Ind.  .383.  »  Co.  Litt.  32  a. 

3  MoAlister  v.  Novenger,  54  Mo.  251,  '^  Moulton  v.  Motdton,  7G  Me.  85. 
253.  ^^  A  diligent  and  careful  compilation 

*  Cogswell  '".  Tibbetts,  .•iupra.  of  the  statutory  provisions  on  this  subject 

5  Walters  v.  Jordan,  13  Ired.  L.  .361,  in  the  several  States,  as  in  force  in  1887, 

364.  will  be  found  in  a  note  appended  to  chap- 

'^  Boll  )'.  Nealy,  1  Bni.  312.  ter  vii.  of  1  Washburn  on  Real  Property, 

7  Stegall  V.  Stegall,  2  Brock.  256.  pp.  *258  et  seq. 


228  ESTATES    OF    DOWEIl    AND    CURTESY.  §  109 

is  self-evident  that  a  divorce  from  bed  and  board  docs  not  defeat 
dower.^ 

Bishop,  in  his  Commentaries  on  the  Law  of  Marriage  and 
Divorce,  says :  "  Still,  in  the  absence  of  any  statutory  provision, 
the  unwritten  law  of  our  l^tates,  in  general,  docs  not  recognize 
the  status  of  marriage  in  a  woman  wlio  has  no  husband.  Conse- 
quently, it  does  not  recognize  in  her  the  existence  of  property 
rights  which  hang  directly  upon  the  status."  ^  In  accordance 
with  this  view,  it  has  been  decided  that  where  a  woman  has  been 
divorced  for  her  misconduct,  whether  in  Missouri  or  elsewhere, 
her  rights  depending  on  the  marriage  are  ended  in  so  far  as  they 
are  not  actually  vested  in  her,  and  that  evidence  of  the  divorce 
may  be  given,  although  obtained  in  a  foreign  jurisdiction  and 
without  actual  notice  to  her,  in  defence  of  her  action  for  dower.'^ 
Where  the  divorce  was  pronounced  against  the  hus- 

Biit  not  divorce  .  ^         i  • 

for  misconduct  band  for  liis  misconduct,*  although  in  a  foreign 
jurisdiction,^  the  wife  is  entitled  to  her  dower  ;  and 
where,  pending  a  proceeding  for  divorce  by  the  wife,  the  husband 
in  another  State  obtained  a  decree  against  her,  it  was  held  that, 
whether  the  foreign  decree  was  valid  or  not,  it  couid  not  affect 
her  right  to  dower  in  his  lands  in  the  State  of  the  wife's  domicil.^ 
In  Alabama  it  was  held  that,  while  a  majority  of  the  adjudged 
cases  and  the  strength  of  the  argument  lead  to  the  conclusion  that 
the  result  of  a  divorce  from  the  bonds  of  matrimony  is  to  bar  the 
wife  of  all  claim  to  dower  in  her  husband's  estate,'^  yet  under  the 
statutes  of  that  State  a  divorce  obtained  by  the  husband  on  the 
ground  of  voluntary  abandonment  does  not  bar  the  surviving 
widow  of  her  right  of  dower.^     But  this  ruling  was  expressly  dis- 

1  Jarnio;an  v.  Jarnigran,  12  Lea,  292;  *  Friend  v.  Friend,  53  Mich.  54-3,  548; 
Taylor  v.  Taylor,  9?>  N.  C.  418.                        Stalil  v.  Stahl,  114  III.  375.     In  Tatro  v. 

2  2  Bish.  Mar.  &  Div.  §  170  c  (5th  ed).      Tatro,  18  Nob.  395,  it  is  held  that,  upon  a 
^  Gould    V.    Crow,   57    Mo.   200,    202.     divorce  being  granted  the  wife,  a  decree 

The   statute   of  Missouri   provides  that,  for  alimony  in  gross  will  be  presumed  to 

"if   any   woman   be  divorced   from   her  be  in  lieu  of  dower. 

husband  for  the  fault  or  misconduct  of  the  ^  Harding  v.  Alden,  9  Me.  140,  146; 

husband,  she  shall  not  thereby  lose  her  McGill  v.  Deming,  44  Oh.  St.  645. 

dower ;  but  if  the  husband  be  divorced  ^  Turner     v.   Turner,   44     Ala.    437, 

from  the  wife,  for  her  fault  or  misconduct,  450. 

slie  shall  not  be  endowed."     See,  to  same  ^  Per  Stone,  J.,  in  Williams  v.  Hale, 

effect.  Van  Cleaf  v.  Burns,  43  Hun,  461,  71  Ala.  83,  85.     See  collection  of  numer- 

in  which  case,  however,  the  wife  appeared  ous  authorities  by  Judge  Stone,  p.  86. 

in  person  to  defend  the  divorce  proceed-  8  Williams  v.  Hale,  supra. 

ings,  in  another  State. 


§  110  WHAT    PROPERTY   IS    SUBJECT   TO   DOWER.  229 

avowed  in  a  later  case,  announcing  the  doctrine  that  a  divorced 
wife  could  under  no  circumstances  claim  dower  at  the  death  of 
her  husband  ;^  and  the  same  view  is  taken  in  lowa,^  and  so,  under 
the  statute,  in  Kentucky.'^ 

§  110.  What  Property  is  subject  to  Dower. — It  will  be  con- 
venient to  consider  first  the  class  or  kind  of  property  of  which  the 
widow  is  dowable,  and  next  the  estate  or  degree  of  interest  of  the 
husband  therein  necessary  to  support  the  wife's  right  of  dower. 

Dower  is  ordinarily  understood  to  be  applicable  to  ^^  a- 

•^  i  '  Dower  ordina- 

real  property  only ;  •*  in  some  of  the  States,  however,  ri'y  applies  to 
the  statute  provides  for  dower  in  personal  property, 

»        .  .  .       .  ,       ,^  L  .  -    in  some  States 

reterrnig  in  some  instances  to  the  {)roperty  assigned  given  in  per- 
for  the  temporary  support  of  the  family,  in  analogy  ^^^^  ^^' 
with  the  ancient  custom  of  supporting  the  widow  out  of  the  estate 
during  the  period  of  quarantine,^  and  in  others  to  the  distributive 
share  allowed  her  by  law  out  of  the  personalty.  At  common  law 
the  widow  is  dowable  of  all  lands,  tenements,  or  hereditaments, 
whether  corporeal  or  incorporeal,  of  which  the  husband  was  seised 
of  an  estate  of  inheritance  during  the  coverture.^ 

Minos  and  quarries  which  have  been  opened  in  the  lifetime  of 
the  husband  are  subject  to  the  widow's  dovver.'^     But  ,,•         a 

">  Mines  and 

not  so,  in  some  States,  unimproved  lands,  of  which  it  quarries. 
was  said  that  they  could  not  be  utilized  by  the  widow  '  **"  ^' 
without  forfeiting  her  estate  in  dower,  because  by  the  principle  of 
the  common  law  the  alteration  of  the  property,  even  if  it  became 
thereby  more  valuable,  would  forfeit  the  estate  in  dower.^  But 
the  reason  for  excluding  wild  lands  from  the  widow's  dower  right 
does  not  extend  to  wild  lands  which  were  used  by  the  husband  in 
connection  with  his  dwelling-house  and  cultivated  lands,  for  the 
purpose  of  procuring  fuel  and  timber  for  repairs.^     And  a  differ- 

1  Hinson  v.  Bush,  4  South.  R.  410  Moore  v.  Rollins,  45  Me.  493  ;  Lenfers  v. 

2  Marvin  i-.  Marvin,  59  Iowa,  699,  ap-     Henke.  73  111.  405,  406. 

proved  in  Bojies  i'.  Latham,  61  Iowa,  174.  *  Conner  v.  Shephard,  15  Mass.  164, 

3  McKean  v.  Brown,  83  Ky.  208.  160;  Webb  v.  Townsend,  1  Pick.  21,  22; 
*  Dow  y.  Dow,  30  Me.  211,216;  Lamar     Fuller  v.  Wason,  7  N.   H.  341;  Ford  v. 

V.  Scott,  3  Strobh.  562,  563;  Davis's  Es-  Erskine,  50  Me.  227,  230. 

tate,  36  Iowa,  24,  30;  Bryant  v.  McCune,  »  White  v.  Willis,  7  Pick.  143,  144  ; 

49  Mo.  546.  but  strictly  confined  to  the  supply  neces- 

°  Infra,  p.  2.30,  note  8.  sary  for  the  occupation  and  enjoyment  of 

^  A)ite,  §  106;  1  Washb.  on  R.  Prop,  the  dwellin<j-liouse  ami  cultivated  lands 

*152,  §  1.  assi^rned  as  dower:  White  v.  Cutler,  17 

7  Coates  V.  Cheever,  1  Cow.  460,  474 ;  Pick.  248.  251  ;    Shattuck  v.    Grafr<i,   23 

Billings    V.    Taylor,    10  Pick.   460,   462;  Pick.  88,  91 ;  Durham  v.  Angier,  20  Me. 


230  ESTATES    OF   DOWER   AND    CUilTESY.  §  111 

eiit  rule  exists  in  most  of  the  States,  in  which  dower  is  allotted  in 
all  the  lands  of  the  husband,  whether  wild  or  cultivated.^ 

Shares  in  incorporated  companies  are  sometimes  treated  as 
Shares  of  stock  I'sal  cstatc,  and  subjected  to  dower.^  Cut,  as  a  gen- 
in  incoipo-        ^j.^^  rulc,  sharcs  in   corporations  are  considered   as 

rated  com-  '  ' 

patiies.  mere  personal  chattels,^  and  are,  as  such,  not  dow- 

able  as  real  estate. 

Accretion  becomes  a  part  of  the  land  to  which  the  alluvion 

attaches,  and  is  thus  an  incident  of  the  ownership  of  him  who 

owns  the  land ;  hence  the  widow  of  a  riparian  owner 

is  entitled  to  dower  in  such  accretion.^ 

Crops  growing  upon  lands  assigned  to  the  widow  as  her  dower 

become  her  property,  and  she  is  entitled  to  the  same  as  against 

the  executor  or  administrator;^  but  she  is  not  entitled 

^°^^'  thereto  before  the  assignment;^  and  in  Arkansas  it  is 

held  that,  where  the  husband  had  mortgaged  the  growing  crop, 

although  the  wife  did  not  join  in  the  instrument  and  died  before 

the  mortgage  was  satisfied,  it  constituted  no  part  of  his  property 

at  the  time  of  his  death,  and  the  widow  was  not  entitled  to  dower 

therein.^ 

In  those  States  in  which  personal  property  is  made  subject  to 
the  dower  of  the  widow,  a  distinction  is  recognized 

Dower  does  not  . 

attach  to  per-  between  it  and  her  dower  m  real  estate  ;  the  for- 
hushahd's  mcr  may  be  sold  or  disposed  of  by  the  husband  at 
^^'^^^'  his  pleasure,  as  the  widow's  right   does   not   attach 

until  his  death.^ 

242,  246,  citing  and  approving  Mosher  v.  lature  passed  an  act  declaring  the  capital 

Mosher,  15  Me.  371 ;  Ballentine  v.  Poyner,  stock  in  all  railway  companies  incorpo- 

2  Hayw.  110;  Owen  v.  Hyde,  6  Yerg.  334,  rated  under  the  laws  of  Kentucky  personal 

339 ;    Fuller  v.  Wason,   supra  ;    Ford   v.  property. 
Erskine,  supra.  ^  1  Washb.  on  R.  Prop.  *166,  §  22;  Mc- 

1  Macaulay  v.  Dismal   Swamp   Co.,  2  Dougal  v.  Hepburn,  5  Fla.  568,  572. 
Rob.  (Va.)  507,  524;  Allen  v.  McCoy,  8  •*  Lombard  v.  Kinzie,  73  111.446;  Gale 
Oh.  418;  Campbell,  Appellant,  2  Dougl.  v.  Kinzie,  80  111.  132. 

141,  142  ;  Hickman  v.  Irvine,  3  Dana,  121,  ^  Ralston  v.  Ralston,  3  G.  Gr.  (Iowa), 

122;  Schnebly  v.  Schnebly,  26  111.    116,  533;  Parker  t'.  Parker,  17  Pick.  236,  240 

119;  Cliapman  v.  Schroeder,  10  Ga.  321,  (even  though  the  crop  had  been  sown  by 

325  ;    (not    questioned    in    New    York  :  the  heir) ;  Clark  v.  Bottorf,  1  Thomp.  & 

Walker  y.  Schuyler,  10  Wend.  480;)  Has-  C.  58  (although  she  did  not  claim  them 

tings    V.    Crunckleton,    3    Yeates,    261 ;  until  after  tlie  administrators  had  inven- 

Brown  v.  Richards,  17  N.  J.  Eq.  32,  38.  toried  and  sold  them). 

2  Price  V.  Price,  6  Dana,  107;  Cope-  ^  Budd  v.  Hiler,  27  N.  J.  L.  43,  46. 
land  V.  Copeland,  7  Bush,  349,  362.     The  ^  Street  v.  Saunders,  27  Ark.  554,  556. 
decision  in  this  last  case  was  rendered  in  '^  McClure  v.  Owens,  32  Ark.  443,  445, 
October,  1870;  in  March,  1871,  the  legis-  citing  and  approving  Arnett  v.  Arnett,  14 


^^  111 


ESTATE    NECESSAUV    TO    SUPl'OUT    DOWEH, 


231 


Leasehold  estates  and  estates  fur  years  are  treated  at  common 
law  as  personal  i)roi)(,'rty,  and  the  widow  of  a  lessee  dying  is  not 
entitled  to  dower  therein,  allliDUgh  it  be  for  a  period  of 

"  ISO  (lower  at 

a  thousand  years,^  or  renewable  forever,  or  although  cuimnon  law  iu 

.       leaseholds. 

the  lease  contain  a  covenant  to  convey  the  estate  in 
fee  on  the  demand  of   the  lessee.-     In  some  of  the  aiuci-  in  some 
States,  however,  dower  is  given  by  statute  in  lease-  ^'''"^^" 
hold  estates  of  a  given  duration.^ 

It  is  held  in  Michigan  that  a  dower  right  cannot  be  established 
in  land,  the  deed  of  which  to  the  husband  of  the  claimant  was 
never  recorded,  and  where  the  premises  have  passed  to  an  in- 
nocent purchaser.* 

§  111.   The  Estate    or  Interest  in   the   Property  necessary  to   sup- 
port Dower  in  the   Widow. — The    estate  of    the    husband   must 
have  been  one  of  inheritance  ;  for,  it  is  said,  as  hers  Husband's 
is  a  mere  continuance  of  the  estate  of  the  husband,  if  sary*toTupport 
his  was  less  than  one  of  inheritance  it  cannot  extend  slower. 


Ark.  57.  But  in  Arkansas  she  takes 
dower  as  against  creditors,  unless  the 
property  has  actually  been  levied  on : 
James  v.  Marcus,  18  Ark.  421,  422.  In 
Iowa  the  term  "  dower  "  is  held  not  appli- 
cable to  personalty  :  Estate  of  Davis,  36 
Iowa,  24,  30.  In  Missouri,  the  widow  is 
allowed  $400  in  property,  to  be  selected 
by  her  at  the  appraised  value,  as  against 
creditors  absolutely,  and  this  includes 
choses  in  action  as  well  as  in  possession  ; 
Cummings  r.  Cunnnings,  51  Mo.  261,  2tj4. 
The  term  "  dower"  is  held  to  apply  to 
personalty  only  in  a  qualified  sense  :  Bry- 
ant V.  McCune,  49  Mo.  546,  citing  and  ex- 
plaining Hastings  v.  Meyer,  21  Mo.  519 ; 
see  also  Hoyt  ik  Davis,  21  Mo.  App.  2-35  ; 
the  widow  takes  dower  in  such  personal 
property  only  as  the  husband  was  owner 
of  at  the  time  of  his  death  :  McLaugh- 
lin V.  McLaughlin,  16  Mo.  242;  Crecelius 
V.  Horst,  89  Mo.  356.  In  Florida  the 
widow's  right  to  dower  in  the  personalty 
may  be  recovered  by  her  personal  repre- 
sentative, if  she  die  before  it  is  allotted 
to  her :  Woodberry  v.  Matherson,  19  Fla. 
778,  784. 

1  Goodwin  v.  Goodwin,  33  Conn.  314, 
316.  In  this  case  the  lease  was  for  999 
years,  and  the  widow  was  lield  not  en- 


titled to  dower,  although  in  the  same 
State  a  similar  leasehold  was  held,  under 
a  question  of  ta,\ation,  to  be  equal  to  a 
fee  :  Brainard  u.  Colchester,  31  Conn.  407, 
411;  Whitmire  v.  Wright,  22  S.  C.  446, 
449  (for  999  years). 

^  Ware  v.  Washington,  6  Sm.  &  M. 
737,  741;  Spangler  v.  Stanler,  1  Md.  Ch. 
36.  This  case  involved  a  lease  for  99 
years,  renewable  forever,  and  containing 
a  covenant  to  make  deed  in  fee  on  re- 
quest. 

3  So  in  Kansas,  previous  to  the  aboli- 
tion of  dower;  in  Massachusetts,  in  terms 
of  one  hundred  years  and  more,  so  long 
as  fifty  years  thereof  remain  unexpired  : 
Pub.  St.  1882,  p.  735,  §  1  ;  Missouri,  in 
leasehold  estates  of  twenty  years  or  more : 
Rev.  St.  1879,  §  21S6;  and  it  seems  that 
in  Ohio  permanent  leases  are  treated  as 
real  estate  in  connection  with  the  law  of 
descents  :  Northern  Bank  of  Kentucky  i\ 
Roosa,  13  Oh.  3.34,  340.  In  Arkansas, 
where  the  widow  is  entitled  to  dower  in 
the  personalty,  she  takes  dower  absolutely 
in  a  lease  of  whatever  duration,  as  in 
personal  proporty,  and  not  for  life,  as  in 
realty :  Lenow  v.  Fones,  48  Ark.  557. 

*  Wheeler  v.  Smith,  55  Mich.  355. 


232  ESTATES    OF    DOWER    AND   CURTESY.  §111 

beyond  his  own  life.'  And  this  whether  the  estate  be  held  for 
his  own  life,  or  for  the  life  of  another,  and  althou<>h  he  die  before 
the  cestui  que  vie.^  For  this  reason,  also,  there  can  be  no  dower  in 
an  estate  for  years,^  no  matter  how  long  the  term  is  to  continue.* 
And  the  estate  must  be  one  of  w^hich  the  husband  had 

Right  of  seism;  .    ,       ,  ,..,.. 

but  not  actual  or  might  liave  had  corporeal  seisin  ;°  it  is  not  neces- 
sary that  there  should  have  been  an  actual  seisin,  be- 
cause then  it  might  often  be  in  the  husband's  power,  by  neglecting 
to  take  such  seisin,  to  deprive  his  wife  of  dower  ;  it  is  enough  if 
he  had  an  actual  seisin  in  law,  with  a  right  to  immediate  corporeal 
No  dower  in  scisiu.^  It  follows,  that  the  wife  takes  no  dower  in  a 
reversion  after    peversioii  or  remainder  after  a  freehold  estate  in  an- 

a  treenolu  in 

another.  other,'^  uulcss  the  husband,  possessing  a  life  estate, 

acquire  the  immediate  reversion  or  remainder  in  fee  expectant 
upon  its  termination.^  But  whether  she  takes  dower  in  an  estate 
given  to  the  husband,  by  executory  devise,  in  fee  simple,  but  if  he 
should  die  without  issue,  then  over  to  another  in  fee,  has  given 
rise  to  great  diversity  of  opinion.  In  the  leading  English  case 
on  this  point  it  was  held  that  the  determination  of  an  estate  by 
operation  of  an  executory  devise  does  not  defeat  curtesy  or 
dower.^  This  view  was  followed  in  Pollard  v.  Slaughter,!*^  and 
Nickell  V.  Tomlinson,''  in  which  the  court  review  the  authorities 
and  come  to  the  conclusion  that  it  has  been  generally  approved 
and  adopted  in  the  United  States.^^     On  the  other  hand,  it  is  con- 

1  1  Washb.  R.  Prop.  *152,  §  2;  Burris  v.   Eastman,  -5  N.   H.  240,  242  ;    Arnold 

V.  Page,  12  Mo.  358.  v.  Arnold,  8  B.  Mon.  202,  204;  Vanleer  v. 

^  Fisher  v.  Grimes,  1   Sm.  &  M.  Ch.  Vanleer,   3  Tenn.   Cli.   23;    Gardner  v. 

107,  108;  Gillis  v.  Brown,  5  Cow.  388.  Greene,  5  R.  I.  104,  108  ;  Cocke  v.  Pliil- 

3  ^H?e,  §  110,  leasehold  estates.  ips,  12  Leigh,  248,  257;  Warren  r.  Wil- 

*  Park  mentions  a  term  for  two  tliou-  liams,  25  Mo.  App.  22. 
sand  years :  1  Washb.  R.  Prop.  *153,  §  3.  ^  Beardslee  v.  Beardslee,  5  Barb.  324, 

So  held  under  a  lease  for  999  years  in  332. 
Whitmire  v.  Wright,  22  S.  C.  446,  449.  »  Buckworth    v.   Thirkell,   3   Bos.   & 

5  Apple  0.  Apple,  1  Head,  348,  350.  Pull.  652  (opin.  of  Lord  Mansfield,  note, 

6  At  wood   V.   At  wood,   22   Pick.   28-3,  p.  655). 

286;  Mann  v.  Edson,  39  Me.  25;   Dun-  i"  92  N.  C.  72,  75. 

ham   V.   Osborn,   1    Pai.  634  ;    Small   v.  "  27  W.  Va.  697,  706. 

Proctor,  15  Mass.  495,  498;    Thompson  i^  Miiiedge  v.  Lamar,  4  Desaus.  617, 

V.  Thompson,  1  Jones  L.  4.30  ;  but  a  mere  637  ;  Northcut  v.  Whipp,  12  B.  Mon   65, 

right  of  entry  in  the  husband  for  con di-  73;    Evans   v.    Evans,   9    Pa.    St.    190; 

tion  broken,  without  more,  does  not  en-  Taliaferro  v.   Burwell,  4  Call,  321,  323 ; 

title  the  widow  to  dower  :  Ellis  v.  Kygar,  Jones  v.  Hughes,  27  Gratt.  560  ;  Hatfield 

90  Mo.  600,  607.  v.   Sneden,   .54   N.  Y.  280,  284 ,    1    Scrib. 

7  Brooks    V.   Everett,    13   Allen,   4.57  ;  Dower,  p.  314,  §  31  .  1  Washb.  R.  Prop. 
Durando  o.  Durando,  23  N.  Y.  331  ;  Fisk  *212,  pi.  32  et  spq. .-  1  Jarm  on  Wills,  *878. 


§  111  ESTATE  NECESSARY   TO   SUPPORT   DOWER.  233 

tended  that  this  doctrine  unreasonably  prolongs,  by  the  incidents 
of  dower  and  curtesy,  an  estate  determined  by  the  terms  of  its 
creation  ;  ^  hence  dower  in  a  defeasible  estate  is  lost  when  the 
estate  is  defeated.'^ 

It  is  obvious  that  there  can  be  no  right  of  dower  in  estates 
held  in  joint  tenancy  with  others,  until  it  reaches  tlic  j^^  j„„,gr  in 
last  survivor.3  jj^^  this  estate  is  not  favored  in  J"'"'  "^'"^ncy. 
America  ;  it  was  never  recognized  in  Connecticut,*  and  Ohio,'^ 
and  in  most  other  States  has  been  abolished,  or  confined  to  trus- 
tees, executors,  and  persons  holding  en  auter  droit,  or  to  cases 
where  the  grant  or  devise  expressly  creates  joint  tenancies.^ 

Since  there  is  no  survivorship  between  coparceners,  lands  held 
in  coparcenary,  as  well  as  those  held  in  common,  are  ^^^  j^  coparce- 
subiect  to  dowerJ     The  rule  is  to  set  off  the  dower  in  "'^'y  ^"^^  ^^>y^- 

J  nioii  tenancies. 

common,  unless  the   husband's   share   has    been  set 
apart  to  him  by  partition,  in  which  case  she  takes  dower  in  the 
portion  set  apart ;  ^  but  in  New  Jersey  she  seems  dowable  of  her 
husband's  proportion  of  the  whole  land,  notwithstanding  a  parol 
partition,  or  possession  taken  thereunder  in  severalty.^ 

"Where  a  husband  has  during  coverture  made  an  exchange  of 
lands,  the  widow  is  entitled  to  dower  in  both  parcels, — in  that 
which  was  conveved  bv,  as  well  as  in  that  which  was  _        •   ,    j 

•  '  Dower  in  lands 

conveved  to,  her  husband,  because  he  was  seised  of  exchan-ced  by 
both  during  coverture,^"  —  unless  the  exchange  was  during' 
technical,  a  mutual  grant  of  equal  interests,  the  one 

1  Weller  v.  Weller,  28  Barb.  588,  502 ;  aney  " :  Rev.  St.  1879,  §  3949.  So  in 
Edwards  v.  Bibb,  54  Ala.  475,  483  ;  4  Kent  Arkansas  :  Cockrill  v.  Armstrona:,  31  Ark. 
Comm.  *4y,  50  ;  Park  on  Dower,  *lt)l)  e<  580,  586;  and  Alabama  :  Parsons  f.  Boyd, 
seq.  (but  see*189,  where  the  writer  seems  20  Ala.  112,  118. 

to  show  that  the  authorities  are  against  ^  Harviil    v.  Holloway,   24    Ark.   19  ; 

him).  Davis  v.  Logan,  9  Dana,  185,  giving,  un- 

2  Moriarta  v.  McRea,  45  Hun,  504.  der  the  Kentucky  statute,  tlie  effect  of 

3  Babbitt  v.  Day,  41    N.  J.   Eq.  392;  tenancy  in  common  to  a  joint  tenancy. 
Mayburry  v.  Brien,  15  Pet.  21,  37  ;  Cock-  «  Potter  v.  Wheeler,  13  Mass.  504,  .506  ; 
i  ill  1-.  Armstrong,  31  Ark.  580,  584.  Wilkinson    v.    Parish,   3  Pai.    653,   658; 

'  Phelps  V.  Jepson,  1  Root,  48,  49.  Mosher  r.  Mosher,  32  Me.  412, 414;  dower 

^  Sergeant  v.  Steinbergor,  2  Oh.  305,  may  first  be  set  out,  according  to  valu- 

affirmed  in  Miles  I'.  Fisher,  10  Oh.  1,4,  and  ation,   and    partition    made   afterwards: 

Tabler  v.   Wiseman,  2  Oh.  St.  207,  210.  Harris  v.  Coats,  75  Ga.  415. 

fi  As,  for  instance,  in  Missouri,  where  ^  WoodhuU  v.  Longstreet,  18  N.  J.  L. 

by  statute  "every  interest  in  real  estate  405, 408,  Nevin<,  J.  dissenting,  416;  Lloyd 

granted  or  devised  to  two  or  more  per-  v.  Connover,  25  N.  J.  L.  47,  51. 
sons,  other   than  e.xecutors  and  trustees         '"  Both  parties  being  regarded  as  ordl- 

and  husband  and  wife,  shall  be  a  tenancy  nary    purchasers  :    Cass  v.  Thompson.  1 

in  common,  unless  expressly  declared,  in  N.  H.  65,  67  ;  Cruize  v.  Billmire,  69  luwa, 

such  grant  or  devise,  to  be  in  joint  ten-  397. 


234  ESTATES    OF    DOWER    AND    CURTESY.  §  111 

• 

in  consideration  of  the  other  and  in  writing,  in  which  case  she 
takes  in  either  of  the  parcels,  at  her  election,  but  not  in  both.i 
This  subject  is  regulated  by  statute  in  Arkansas,^  Illinois,^  Michi- 
gan,^ New  York,^  Oregon,^  and  Wisconsin.'  Where  the  statute 
is  silent,  the  common  law  rule  is,  of  course,  to  be  applied.^ 

Real  estate  acquired  by  a  firm  for  partnership  purposes,  although 

held  in  law  by  the  several  partners   as  tenants  in  common,  is 

nevertheless  liable  for  the  partnership  debts,  and  is  in 

No  dower  ia  .  ,     ^  ,  a      r  ^ 

partnership  equity  treated  as  personal  property  tor  such  purpose, 
lands.  Hence,  as  a  general  rule,  partnership  property  is  not 

subject  to  the  dower  of  tlie  wives  of  any  of  the  partners,  except 
such  as  may  remain  after  paying  all  partnership  debts,  whether 
to  creditors  or  the  partners  themselves.^  It  is  immaterial  whether 
the  title  be  taken  in  the  firm  name,  or  in  the  name  of  one  of  the 
partners.i'^  In  America  it  seems  to  be  generally  held 
re^kiue  Mie/  that  real  estate  remaining  after  the  payment  of  debts, 
faS'iiJ  and  adjustment  of  the  equitable  claims  of  the  partners 
'^^^^'"  between  themselves,  is  to  be  treated  as  real  estate  ;  ^^ 

and  since  there  is  no  power  to  sell  the  firm  real  estate  by  any 
one  of  the  partners,  except  for  the  payment  of  debts,  the  excess 
realized  by  a  surviving  partner  in  such  a  sale  over  the  necessary 
amount,  although  distributable  like  personal  property,  devolves 
to  the  same  parties  who  would  be  entitled  to  the  real  estate,  and 
the  widow  of  a  deceased  partner  takes  as  dowress.^^     Distinctions 

1  Shep.  Touch.  *294 ;  Co.  Litt.  31  b;  and  Howard  y.  Priest,  5  Met.  582;  Paige 
Stevens  v.  Smith,  4  J.  J.  Marsh.  64;  Ma-     v.  Paige,  71  Iowa,  318,  320. 

honey  v.  Young,  3  Dana,  588.  i"  Willet  v.  Brown,  65  Mo.  138,   144. 

2  Dig.  1884,  §  2573.  •         The  seeming  exception,  noticed  by  some 

3  St.  &  C.  St.  1885,  p.  904,  §  17.  text-writers,  of  a  case  wiiere  the  partner 
*  How.  St.  1882,  §  5734.  so  holding  tlie  title  had  by  agreement 
6  B.  &  Br.  St.  1882,  p.  2197,  §  3.     The     been  charged  by  the  firm  as  debtor  lor 

term  "  exchange  "  receives  the  same  in-  the  purcliase  money,  is  really  no  excep- 

terpretation    here   as   at   common    law  ;  tion :    the  transaction  constituted  a  sale 

hence  a  widow  is  not  put  to  her  election  of  tlie  real  estate  to  such  partner,  who 

where  an  equitable  interest  in  seventy-  thus  held  it  in  his  individual  right :  Smith 

five  acres  of  land  was  transferred  for  a  v.  Smith,  5  Ves   189. 
fee  in   eleven  acres  of   land   and   $700:         "  See   Lenow  v.  Fones,  48  Ark.  557, 

Wilcox  V.  Randall,  7  Barb.  633,  639.  and  also  Buchan  i}.  Sumner,  2  Barb.  Ch. 

6  Code,  1887,  §  2955.  165,  200,  for  an  exhaustive  review  of  the 

I  Rev.  St.  1878,  §  2161.  English    and    American    authorities    on 

8  Mosher  v.  Mosher,  32  Me.  412,  415.  this  point,  reaching  the  conclusion  staled 

9  Campbell  v.  Campbell,  30  N.  J.  Eq.  in  the  text ;  Mowry  v.  Bradley,  11  R.  I. 
415,  417  ;  Uhler  v.  Semple,  20  N.  J.  Eq.  370,  372  ;  Hiscock  v.  Jaycox,  12  N.  Bankr. 
288,   294  ;    Buchan   v.  Sumner,  2   Barb.  Reg.  507,  517. 

Ch.   165,  200 ;  Simpson  v.  Leech,  86  111.         ^^  Foster's  Appeal,  74  Pa.  St.  391,  397. 
286,  citing   Dyer   v.  Clark,  5  Met.  562, 


§  111  '  ESTATE   NECESSARY    TO   SUPl'ORT    DOWER.  235 

have  been  drawn  with  reference  to  the  nature  of  the  business  in 
which  the  lirni  engaged,  allowing  dower  where  the  partners  were 
buying  and  selling  lands  on  speculation,^  or  determining  the 
question  according  to  the  agreement  or  stipulation  between  the 
partners,^  and  holding  that  in  the  absence  of  an  ex'preas  agree- 
ment stipulating  that  lands  acquired  by  the  partners  shall  be 
applied  in  the  payment  of  partnership  debts  ;  '^  but  these  cases 
are  in  conflict  with  the  current  of  authorities,  and  of  no  weight. 
So  it  has  been  held  in  Virginia,  contrary  to  the  tenor  of  American 
decisions  generally,  that  real  estate  of  a  partnership  used  for 
})ai-tnership  purposes  is,  ill  equity,  personal  property  for  all  pur- 
poses, and  on  the  death  of  any  of  the  partners  goes  to  his  personal 
representative.'* 

There  can  be  no  dower  in  the  estate  of  a  trustee,  although  he 
holds  the  legal  seisin  and  estate,  because  the  trustee  ^^  ^ 

°  '  No  dower  m 

has  no  beneficial  interest  in  the  trust  ;^  nor  was  dower  estate  oi  a 

tmstGG. 

allowed  in  England  before  the  Dower  Act^  in  the 
estate  of  a  cestui  que,  trust,  or  in  an  equity  of  redemption."     In 
the  United  States  the  law  as  to  dower  in  equitable  estates  is  not 
uniform.     Seisin  of  the  legal  estate  is  required  in  Florida,^  Geor- 
ffia,^  Maine,i°  Massachusetts,^^  Michigan, ^^  New  Hamp-  Different  rules 

1 1   Ti-  1-  T    -.T7  •  •       i<-         1  -1      as  to  equitable 

shire,^^  Oregon,^''  \  ermont,^"  and  Wisconsin  ;^^   while  estates. 

1  Markham  v.  Merrett,  7  How.  (Miss.)      mortgage  debt:   McMahon  i;.  Eussell,  17 
437,   445.     See    authorities    to    the   con-     Fla.  6'.'8,  703. 

trary,  post,  §  126.  '  Code,  1882,  §  1763;    Bowen  v.  Col- 

2  Greene  v.  Greene,  1  Oh.  535,  542  ;     lins,  15  Ga.  100 ;  Latham  v.  MoLain,  64 
Hawley  v.  James,  5  Pai.  31K,  454  et  Sfq.  ;     Ga.  320. 

Wheatley    v.  Calhoun,    12    Leigh,    264,  =»  Rev.   St.  1888,  p.  812;  1  Scrib.  on 

272.  Dower,  414,  §  4. 

■i  Smith   V.  Jackson,  2   Edw.  Ch.  28,  "  Pub.  St.  1882,  p.  740,  §  3.     But  prop- 

35 ;  Bell  r.  Phyn,  7  Ves.  453.  erty  held  under  a  defective   description 

*  Pierce  v.  Trigg,  10  Leigh,  406,  422.  is  subject  to  the  wife's  dower:  Hale  i'. 

6  Hopkinson  v.  Dumas,  42  N.  H.  296,  Munn,   4   Gray,    132,    136 ;    so  also  land 

306  ;    Chesnut  v.   Chesnut,  15   111.   App.  recovered  in  an  action  for  specific  per- 

442,  449;  King  ;;.  Bushnell,  121  111.  656.  formance  of  a  contract  of  sale:  Reed  v. 

«'  3  &  4  Wm.  IV.  c.  105.  Whitney,  7  Gray,  533,  537. 

■^  See  1  Waslib.  R.  Prop.  *160  et  seq.,  l-  How.  St.  1882,  §  5733 ;  May  v.  Rum- 
showing  the   distinction    in   this  respect  ney,  1  Mich.  1. 

between  the  right  of  curtesy  and  dower  1=^  Gen.  L.  1878,  p.  474 ;  Hopkinson  v. 

in  equitable  estates,  and  a  brief  account  Dumas,  42  N.  H.  296,  305. 

of    the    history    of   dower    in    equitable  i*  Whiteaker  v.  Vanschoiack,  5  Greg. 

estates.  113,  118. 

«  Laws,  1881,  p.  475,  §  1.     But  niort-  i^  Rev.  L.  1880,  §  2215;    Dummerston 

gages  are  held  not  to  be  present  convey-  i'.  Newfane,  37  Vt.  9,  13. 

ances,  and  the  widow  has  her  dower  in  ^'^  Laws,    1878,    §  2159;    1    Scrib.    on 

the  mortgaged  premises,  except  as  to  the  Dower,  414,  §  4. 


236 


ESTATES   OF   DOWER    AND   CUKTESY. 


§111 


an  estate  of  inheritance,  legal  or  equitable,  is  held  sufficient  in 
Alabama,!  Arkansas,^  Connecticut,-^  Delaware,^  Illinois,^  Ken- 
tucky ,6  Maryland,'  Missouri,^  New  Jersey ,9  New  York,io  North 
Carolina,"  Ohio,i2  Pennsylvania,!^  Rhode  Island,'*  South  Carolina,!^ 
Tennessee,!*^  Virginia,!^  and  West  Virginia.!^  But  if  there  be  a 
conveyance  by  the  husband  of  a  merely  equitable  estate  during 
the  coverture,  dower  is  generally  defeated  thereby,  whether  the 
conveyance  was  absolute,!^  or  by  way  of  mortgage.^o 

There  is,  at  common  law,  no  dower  in  mortgaged  estates,  be- 
No  dower  in  causc  there  is  no  seisin  in  the  husband,^!  except  where 
equity  of  re-      ^j^g  mortgrage  is  for  years,  and  not  in  fee,  because 

demption  at  ,  .  i  i  •  .  i  •    i      -j. 

couimon  law;  in  such  casc  there  IS  a  legal  reversion  to  which  it 
attaches  upon  redemption.22  In  the  United  States,  however,  the 
hut  otherwise  wife  is  held  dowable  of  equities  of  redemption  ex- 
stales.""''"'  isting  at  the  husband's  death,23  whether  the  estate 
was  mortgaged  by  the  husband  before,  or  by  the  husband  and  wife 


1  Laws,  1886,  §  1892. 

2  Kirby  v.  Vantrece,  26  Ark.  368,  370. 

3  Fisli  V.  Fish,  1  Conn.  559,  construing 
a  statute  substantially  the  same  as  the 
provision  in  Gen.  St.  1875,  p.  376,  §  1. 

*  But  only  in  intestate  estates :  Cor- 
nog  V.  Cornog,  3  Del.  Ch.  407,  415  ;  Gem- 
mill  V.  Kichardson,  4  Del.  Ch.  599  ;  Bush 
V.  Bush,  5  Houst.  245,  264. 

5  Starr  &  C.  St.  188-5,  p.  896,  IF  1  ; 
Sisk  V.  Smith,  6  111.  503,  513;  NicoU  v. 
Todd,  70  111.  295. 

6  Gen.  St.  1887,  p.  733,  §  2;  1  Scrib. 
Dower,  420,  §  11. 

7  Laws,  1878,  p.  397,  §  1. 

8  Duke  V.  Brandt,  51  Mo.  221,  224; 
Hart  V.  Logan,  49  Mo.  47. 

9  Yeo  V.  Mercereau,  18  N.  J.  L.  387, 
390  ;  Gushing  v.  Blake,  30  N.  J.  Eq.  689, 
695 ;  Skellenger  v.  Skellenger,  32  N.  J. 
Eq.  659. 

1'  3  Banks  &  Bro.  2197,  %  I  et  serj. : 
Re  Ransom,  17  Fed.  Rep.  331,  and  cases 
cited. 

11  Code,  1883,  §  2102  ;  it  seems  the 
equitable  estate  must  be  such  as  a  court 
of  equity  can  enforce  :  Efland  v.  Efland, 
96  N.  C.  488,  493. 

1-2  Rands  v-  Kendall,  15  Oil.  671 ;  fol- 
lowed in  Abbott  V.  Bosworth,  36  Oh.  St. 
605.  608;  Laws,  0!i.  1880,  §  4188. 

13  Shoeiuakfr  u.  Walker,  2  S.  &  R.  554. 


1*  Pub.  St.  1882,  p.  637,  §  1  ;  1  Scrib. 
Dower,  421,  §  11. 

15  Bowman  v.  Baiiey,  20  S.  C.  550, 
554;  Rev.  St.  1873,  p.  432,  §13.  But 
the  husband  must  have  been  in  a  position 
to  demand  the  legal  title,  it  seems:  Mor- 
gan V.  Smith,  25  S.  C.  337,  339. 

16  Code,  1884,  §  3244 ;  Martin  v.  Lin- 
coln, 4  Lea,  289. 

1'  Code,  1887,  §  2267.  The  equita- 
ble estate  must  be  such  that  the  legal 
estate  might  have  been  decreed  :  Row  ton 
V.  Rowton,  1  Hen.  &  M.  91 ;  Wheatley  v. 
Calhoun,  12  Leigh,  264. 

18  1  Kelley's  Rev.  St.  ch.  70,  §  1. 

19  Hawley  v.  James,  5  Pai.  318,  453  ; 
Heed  v.  Ford,  16  B.  Mon.  114.  117  ;  Junk 
V.  Canon,  34  Pa.  St.  286;  Wheatley  v. 
Calhoun,  12  Leigh,  264,  274. 

21'  Miller  v.  Stump,  3  Gill,  304,  310; 
Purdy  V.  Purdy,  3  Md.  Ch  547,  55U ; 
Glenn  v.  Clark,  53  xMd.  580,  604 ;  Morse 
v.  Thorsell,  78  111.  600. 

21  Worsham  v.  Callison,  49  Mo.  206, 
207 ;  1  Scrib.  Dower,  463,  pi.  1. 

22  1  Scrib.  476,  pi.  21. 

23  4  Kent,  *45  ;  Scribner  mentions 
twenty-eight  States  as  so  holding,  omit- 
ting only  California,  Colorado,  Delaware, 
Florida,  Louisiana,  Nebraska,  Nevada, 
New  Jersey,  Te.xas,  and  West  Virginia. 


§  111  ESTATE   NECESSARY   TO    SDPPOUT    DOWER.  237 

during  coverture ;  ^  and  she  may  redeem  the  land  from  existing 
incumbrance  in  protection  of  her  right  to  dower  therein.^  The 
release  of  dower,  where  the  wife  joins  in  the  mortgage,  is  a  re- 
lease in  favor  of  the  mortgagee  only,  and  only  to  the  extent  of  the 
deht  secured  by  the  mortgage ;»  and  while  a  sale  of  the  moi-t- 
gaged  premises  during  the  husband's  lifetime  is  in  some  States 
allowed  to  defeat  the  wife's  inchoate  dower  by  treating  the  sur- 
plus as  personal  property  to  which  dower  does  not  attach,*  it  is 
unquestioned,  even  in  the  States  so  holding,  that  she  takes  dower 
in  the  surplus  where  the  sale  takes  place  after  the  husband's 
death.^  A  sale  by  the  husband  of  the  equity  of  redemption,  in 
which  sale  the  wife  had  not  joined,  does  not  affect  her  right  to 
redeem.'' 

The  lien  of  a  vendor  for  the  purchase  money  of  the  land  is 
obviously  superior  to  the  dower  right  of  the  purchaser's  widow." 
The  lien  is  good  against  her  whether  a  mortgage  has  ^^^^.^^^^ 
been  executed  to  secure  the  purchase  money  or  not,  against  the 

'-  "^  vendor  s  lien 

and  a  fortiori,  whether  she  joined  therein  or  executed  for  unpaid  pur- 

,  .         ,  1   1  •     ]•  chase  money.' 

the  same  under  circumstances  makmg  lier  act  bindmg 
or  not.s    The  statute  of  Iowa  provides  that  the  vendor's  lien  shall 
not  be  recognized  after  a  conveyance  by  the  vendee,  unless  re- 
served by  conveyance  or  other  histrument  duly  recorded.     Under 
this  statute  it  was  held  that  a  contract  for  the  sale  by  the  vendee  is 

1  1  Washb.  R.  Prop.  bk.  1,  ch.  vii.  §  2,  and  authorities;  Matthews  v.  Duryee,  4 
pi.  17 ;  1  Scrib.  467,  pi.  8  et  seq. ;  Turbe-  Keyes,  525,  5.%,  relying  on  Mills  r.  Van 
ville  V.  Gibson,  5  Heisk.  565,  586,  602.  Voorhies,   20  N.   Y.   412  ;    De   Wolf   v. 

2  Kissel  V.  Eaton,  64  Ind.  248,  241);  Murphy,  11  R.  I.  6-30,  634;  Vreeland  v. 
McMahon   v.  Russell,  17   Fla.  698,   705,  Jacobus,  19  N.  J.  Eq.  231. 

citing    numerous    authorities  ;    4    Kent,  ^  i  Washb.  R.  Prop.  bk.  1,  ch.  vii.  §  2, 

*162;  1  Scrib.  481  ef  .•^e^.,  with  numerous  pi.    18;    Kauffman    v.  Peacock,   115   III. 

authorities;  Kauffman  r.  Peacock,  115  111.  212;  State   Bank  v.   Hinton,  21  Oh.  St. 

212,  216;   Newhall  v.  Lynn,   101    Mass.  509,  515;  Chaffee  v.   Franklin,  11   R.  I. 

428*,  431.  578. 

3  Blain  v.  Harrison,  11  111.  384,  387;  «  McArthur  v.  Franklin,  15  Oli.  St. 
Smith  V.  Eustis,  7  Me.  41,  43;  Ridgway  485,  491. 

V.   Masting,  23  Oh.  St.  204,  296 ;  unless  "^  It   is   uniformly  so    held  :    1    Scrib. 

otlierwise  expressed  in   the  instrument:  441,  §  44,  and  numerous  authorities ;  lb., 

Genobles  c.  West,  23  S.  C.  154,  168;  tlie  p.  555,  §  1  et  sa/.,  with  additional  authori- 

wife  having  joined  in  a  deed  or  mortgage  ties  ;  Boyd  r.  iMartin,  0  Heisk.  382,  .384  ; 

wiiich  is  subsequently  avoided,  or  ceases  Birnie  v.  Main,  29  Ark.  591,  596;  Cocke 

to  operate,  she  is  restored  to  her  original  ?•.  Bailey,  42  Miss.  81,  86. 

position:  Hinchliffe  v.   Shea,  103  N.   Y.  s  AVheeler  y.  Morris,  2  Bosw.  524,  535 ; 

153.  Glenn  v.  Clark,  53  Md.  580,  604;  George 

*  But  in  some  cases  the  courts  have  v.  Cooper,  15  W.  Va.  666,  674 ;  Tliomas 

gone  so  far  as  to  protect  inchoate  dower  v.  Hanson,  44  Iowa,  651. 
in  the  surplus  :  2  Jones  on  Mortg.,  §  1694, 


238  ESTATES    OF   DOWER    AND   CURTESY.  §   111 

not  such  a  conveyance  as  will  defeat  the  vendor's  licn.^  The  right 
,,    ,   ,  ,.        of  the  vendor,  however,  is  personal  to  him,  and  does 

Vendor's  lien  . 

a  personal  lif^ht  not  pass  to  his  assigncc  by  the  simple  indorsement  of 
by  indorsement  thc  notc  to,  or  payment  of  the  debt  by,  a  third  person, 
°  """^"  unless  the  lien  was  reserved  on  the  face  of  tiie  deed  ;2 

and,  if  lost  by  the  acceptance  of  independent  security,  can  only 
,„. ,     .  be  revived  by  act  of  the  vendee.^    The  widow  is  en- 

\\  idow  ]s  en-  •' 

titled  to  dower   titled  to  her  dower  in  the  land  after  discharge  of  the 

m  ei|uit3'  of  re-  . 

deniption  from  lien,  Of  in  the  surplus  after  a  sale  to  enforce  it,  to  the 
same  extent  as  in  any  other  equity  of  redemj)tion  ;  * 
the  vendor's  title  is  a  mere  equity  to  charge  the  lands,  and,  until 
enforced,  the  widow  is  entitled  to  possession,  and  rents  and  profits.^ 
Where  a  widow,  possessed  of  a  dower  interest  consummate,  pur- 
chases the  reversionary  fee,  but  fails  to  pay  the  purchase  money, 
it  is  obvious  that  the  vendor's  lien  extends  only  to  the  interest  so 
purchased.^ 

It  is  to  be  remembered,  in  connection  with  the  subject  of  ven- 
dor's lien,  that  while  instantaneous  seisin,  accompanied  by  a  bene- 
instantaneous  ficial  interest  in  the  husband,  is  generally  held  to  be 
!,^''"'"".  sufficient  to  confer  dower  upon  the  wife,^  yet  seisin 

Transitory  ^  "^ 

seisin.    '  for  a  transitory  instant  only,  as  where  the  same  act 

which  gives  him  the  estate  also  conveys  it  out  of  him,  or  where  he 
is  the  mere  conduit  employed  to  pass  the  title  to  a  third  person, 
does  not  confer  the  right.^  It  is  to  this  principle  that  the  para- 
mount nature  of  the  vendor's  title  is  sometimes  ascribed,  and 
which  may  be  decisive  of  the  dower  right  between  the  widow  and 
a  person  claiming  title  under  the  vendor's  lien.^ 

1  Noyes  v.  Kramer,  54  Iowa,  22,  25.  of  purchase,  where  the  purchase  money, 

2  Bowlin  V.  Pearson,  4  Baxt.  341,  343,  thougli  tendered,  has  not  been  paid  in  the 
citing  Green  v.  Demoss,  10  Humph.  371,  lifetime  of  the  liusband,  constitutes  no 
374;  Unger  J).  Leiter,  32  Oh.  St.  210,  211 ;  seisin,  and  tiie  widow  is  not  dowable  : 
Calmes  v.  McCracken,  8  S.  C.  87,  98.  Latham  v.  McLain,  04  Ga.  320,  322  ;  Lane 

'^  Ilollis   V.   Holiis,   4  Baxt.   524,  527 ;  v.  Courtnay,  1  Heisk.  331.     Where,  how- 

Pettus  V.  McKinney,  74  Ala.  108,  113.  ever,  the  husband,  under  an  oral  contract, 

*  Unger  v.  Leiter,  32  Oh.  St.  210,  212 ;  takes  possession  and  pays  the  purchase 

Holiis  V.  HoUis,  4  Baxt.  525 ;  Greenbaum  money,  he  is  the  equitable  owner,  and 

V.  Austrian,  70  111.  591.  cannot,  by  causing  the  vendor  to  execute 

5  Flinn  v.  Barber,  64  Ala.  193,  196.  a  deed  to  another,  deprive  his  wife  of 

6  McCurdy  v.  Middleton,  82  Ala.  131,  dower:  Everitt  v.  Everitt,  71  Iowa,  221. 
138.     See  also  Pope  v.  Mead,  99  N.  Y.  »  Fontaine  v.  Boatmen's   Savings  In- 
201,  holding  the  converse.  stitution,  57  Mo.  552,  558. 

^  Douglass  V.  Dickson,  11  Rich.  417,  ^  Smith   v.  McCarty,   119  Mass.  519, 

422  ;  Griggs  v.  Smith,  12  N.  J.  L.  22,  23 ;  citing  Webster  v.  Campbell,  1  Allen,  313, 

Stow  V.  Tifft,  15  Johns.  458,  462  ;  hut  the  and  other  Massachusetts  cases, 
possession  of  land  under  a  parol  contract 


§  111  ESTATE   NECESSARY    TO    SUPPORT   DOWER.  239 

An  outstanding  judgment  at  the  time  of  the  marriage,  wliieh 
by  the  law  constitutes  a  lien  upon  the  land,  gives  the  widow  a 
similar  right  as  if  the  judgment  were  a  mortgage  ;  outstanding 
lior  claim  is  subject  to  such  lien,^  unless  the  judgment  3"''fe''i'en'- 
happen  to  be  entered  upon  the  day  of  the  marriage,  in  which  case 
her  di)wer  takes  precedence.^ 

It  has  been  held  that  dower  cannot  be  affected  by  a  mechanic's 
lien, 3  at  least  if  it  accrue  after  the  marriage  and  be-  Mechanic's 
fore  the  death  of  the  employer;*  but  in  Kentucky  ''en. 
the  widow  was  required  to  remove  such  liens  before  lier  dower 
right  attached.^ 

An  estate  for  years  created  by  the  husband  before  or  after  mar- 
riage, whether,  if  after  marriage,  the  wife  join  therein  j^^^^^  j,^ 
or  not,  is  no  impediment  to  her  dower ;  she  takes,  in  '■<^"'*- 
such  case,  dower  in  the  reversion  in  fee,  and  also  of  a  proportion- 
ate part  of  the  rents.^ 

There  is  a  conflict  of  decisions  on  the  question  whether  a  widow 
is  dowable  of  lands  taken  for  public  use  in  the  exercise  of  the 
riu'ht  of  eminent  domain.     Her  right  has  been  denied,  ^        .   ,    ^ 

»  -  Dower  in  lands 

on  the  ground  that  to  allow  a  division  of  the  property  takon  for  pub- 
so  taken  would  destroy  it  for  the  use  to  which  it  has 
been  appropriated,  and  that  private  interests  must  give  way  to 
public  convenience  and  necessity.'  But  neither  of  these  reasons 
seems  satisfactory,  because  private  property  should  not  be  taken, 
even  in  the  exercise  of  the  power  of  eminent  domain,  without 
compensation  to  those  who  are  injured  by  such  taking ;  and  if  the 
assignment  of  dower  by  metes  and  bounds  would  be  destructive  of 
the  use  to  which  the  property  is  appropriated,  it  may  be  given  in 
money,  as  is  done  in  other  cases  in  which  there  can  be  no  assign- 
ment of  specific  lands.  These  considerations  are  strongly  in- 
sisted on  by  Reed,  J.,  in  a  case  of  this  kind  arising  in  New  Jersey, 
where  it  was  held  that  the  wife  was  a  proper  party  to  a  proceeding 

1  Robbins  y.  Robbins,  8  Blackf.  174.  6  Herbert  v.   Wren,    7   Cranch,   370; 

2  Ingram  v.  Morris,  4  Flarr.  111.  Williams  v.  Cox,  .3  Edw.  Cb.  178;  Weir 
8  Scliaeffer  v.  Weed,  8  111.  511,  51.3;      v.  Humpbries,  4  Ired.Eq.  264,273;  Boyd 

Gove    V.   Gather,   23  111.   634.  639;  Van  r.  Hunter,  44  Ala.  705,  719. 
Vronker  v.  Eastman,  7  Met.  (Mass.)  157,  '^  French  v.  Lord,  69  Me.  537,   541  ; 

161 ;  laege  v.  Bossieux,  15  Gratt.  83, 105 ;  Gwynne  v.  Cincinnati,  3  Oh.  24,  25  ;  Moore 

Bishop  V.  Boyle,  0  Ind   169.  v.  New  York,  4  Sandf .  456,  460 ;  s.  c.  8 

*  Pifer  r.  Ward,  8  Blackf.  252.  N.   Y.   110;  Dmican  v.  Terre  Haute,  85 

5  Nazareth  Institution  v.  Lowe,  1  B.  Ind.  104,  106. 
Mon.  257. 


240  estatpjS  of  dower  and  curtesy.  §  111 

for  tlic  condemnation  of  the  husband's  land  to  jmblic  use,  because 
she  was  interested  in  the  land  by  reason  of  her  inchoate  dower.^ 
And  in  Massachusetts  it  is  held  that  if  land  be  acquired  by  pur- 
chase without  resort  to  the  power  of  eminent  domain,  although 
the  corporation  purchasing  might  have  had  recourse  to  such 
power,  the  dower  right  of  the  widow  follows  the  land,  with  all 
the  incidents  to  such  form  of  contract  between  parties.^  It  was 
held  in  Pennsylvania,  that  a  borough,  having  in  the  exercise  of 
eminent  domain  condemned  land  in  which  a  widow's  dower  had 
been  assigned,  was  liable  to  the  widow  for  its  value,  although  full 
compensation  for  the  whole  value  of  the  land  had  been  made  in  a 
proceeding  to  which  she  was  no  party. ^ 

The  rule  at  common  law  giving  dower  in  all  lands  of  which  the 

husband  was  seised  during  coverture,  implies  that  the  widow  is 

entitled  to  her  dower  in  all  such  lands,  although  they 

Effect  of  judi-  .  ,  ^    ,       .     , .    .    , 

ciai  sale  during  had  bccn,  durmg  coverture,  sold  by  judicial  process, 
coverture.  ^^^^  common  law  has  been  modified,  in  this  respect, 
by  the  English  statute,*  and  in  several  of  the  American  States,  by 
statutes  giving  dower  in  the  lands  of  which  the  husband  died 
seised  or  possessed ;  ^  in  such  cases,  neither  a  voluntary  assign- 
ment in,  favor  of  creditors,^  nor  the  title  passing  to  the  assignee 
in  bankruptcy,'  affects  the  wife's  dower.^     So  the  sale  of  a  hus- 

1  Wheeler  v.  Kirtland,  27  N.  J.  Kq.  534,  «  Eberle  v.  Fisher,  13  Pa.  St.  526.  In 
536.  Jurlge  Reed  criticises  and  condemns  Pennsylvania  the  rights  of  creditors  are 
the  doctrine  of  Moore  v.  New  York,  and  paramount  to  the  dower  of  the  widow, 
Gwynne  v.  Cincinnati,  and  refers  to  two  and  the  latter  is  barred  by  a  judicial  sale  : 
New  York  cases  in  which  tlie  same  was  Trunkey,  J.,  in  Lazear  v.  Porter,  87  Pa. 
repudiated  or  modified.  One  of  these,  St.  513,  517 ;  but  this  principle  does  not 
In  the  Matter  of  the  Central  Park  Exten-  imply  that  a  sale  of  real  estate  by  the 
sion,  16  Abb.  Pr.  56,  68,  held  that  the  assignee  of  an  insolvent  debtor  or  of  a 
widow's  right  was  transferred  from  the  bankrupt  shall  bar  tlie  wife's  dower  : 
land  to  the  money  received  therefor ;  the  Lazear  v.  Porter,  supra,  overruhng  a  dic- 
other,  deciding  that,  as  between  a  wife  tum  in  Worcester  v.  Clark,  2  Grant,  84; 
and  any  other  than  the  State,  or  its  dele-  Kelso's  Appeal,  102  Pa  St.  7,  9.  In 
gates  or  agents  exercising  the  right  of  Bryar's  Appeal,  111  Pa,  St.  81,  it  is  held 
eminent  domain,  an  inchoate  right  of  that  a  purchaser  from  an  assignee  m 
dower  in  lands  is  such  an  interest  therein  bankruptcy,  .subject  to  a  mortgage,  and 
as  will  be  protected,  and  for  which  the  who  afterwards  purchases  such  mortgage 
widow  has  an  action,  modifying  Moore  and  sells  under  a  judgment  recovered 
V.  New  York  to  that  extent:  Simar  v.  thereon,  becoming  himself  the  purchaser, 
Canaday,  53  N.  Y.  298,  304.  takes  free  from  the  dower  claim  of  the 

2  Nye  V.  Taunton  R.  R.  Co.,  113  Mass.  bankrupt's  wife. 

277  279.  ''  Porter  v.  Lazear,  109  U.  S   84,  86; 

3  York  V.  Welsh,  117  Pa.  St.  174.  Mattill  v.  Baas,  89  Ind.  220. 

4  3  &  4  Wm.  IV.  c.  105.  ^  In  Iowa,  however,  where  the  widow 
6  jinte,  §  106.  takes  one  third  of  all  the  real  estate  pos- 


§  112  INCHOATE   DOWER.  241 

baud's  interest  under  a  will,  the  wife  not  having  been  made  a 
party  to  the  proceeding,  does  not  debar  her  of  her  claim  to  dower 
in  the  lands  sold.^  In  Georgia  there  must  be  a  conveyance  by 
the  husband,  or  by  the  oflFiccr  of  the  law  undei-  a  judicial  sale,  to 
bar  the  wife  of  dower  in  any  land  owned  by  the  husband  during 
coverture.^  But  it  is  held  in  Arkansas  that  the  for-  saic  for  unpaid 
feiture  of  land  to  the  State  fur  the  non-payment  of  ^'^^'=^' 
taxes,  and  sale  by  the  State  after  the  expiration  of  the  time  for 
redemption,  extinguish  the  widow's  dower.-^ 

§  112.  Inchoate  Dower. — The  right  of  dower  before  its  consum- 
mation by  the  death  of  the  husband,  or  by  divorce,  is  not,  perhaps, 
capable  of  exact  and  comprehensive  definition  as  a  inchoate 
right  of  property.  It  is  difficult  even  to  state  with  ^^''^^■^'■• 
precision  its  nature  and  qualities.*  "  Dower,"  says  Kent,^  "  is  a 
title  inchoate  and  not  consummate  till  the  death  of  the  husband  ; 
but  it  is  an  interest  which  attaches  on  the  land  as  soon  as  there  is 
a  concurrence  of  marriage  and  seisin."  "  But  still,"  says  a  Fed- 
eral judge,^  "it  is  not  only  an  inchoate  right,  but  contingent.  It 
depends  upon  the  death  of  the  husband.  If  he  survive  his  wife, 
she  has  no  right  transmissible  to  her  heirs,  nor  during  the  life  of 
her  husband  can  she  give  it  any  form  of  property,  to  her  advan- 
tage. ...  So  long  as  the  husband  shall  live,  it  is  only  a  right  in 
legal  contemplation,  depending  upon  the  good  conduct  of  the 
wife  and  the  death  of  the  husband.  Until  the  death  of  the  hus- 
band, the  right  —  if  it  may  be  called  a  right  —  is  shadowy  and 
fictitious,  and,  like  all  rights  which  are  contingent,  may  never 
become  vested."  Without  undertaking  to  follow  this  question 
into  its  intricate  niceties,  some  of  the  prominent  principles  upon 
which  the  adjudications  with  reference  thereto  have  been  placed 
will  here  be  mentioned. 

Although  dicta,  and  even  decisions,  are  by  no  means  wanting, 
questioning  and  denying  the  quality  of  an  estate  or  inoperty  in 

sessed  by  the  husband  at  any  time  during  i  Dingman  v.  Dingman,  39  Oh.  St.  172, 

the  marriage,  which  has  not  been  sold  on  178. 

execution  or  other  judicial  sale,  not  re-  ^  jjart  v.  McCollum,  28  Ga.  478,  481. 

linquished  by  the  wife,  it  is  held  that  a  ^  McWhirter  v.  Roberts,  40  Ark.  283, 

sale  by  an  assignee  in  bankruptcy  of  the  289. 

bankrupt's   land   is  a  judicial  sale,  and  *  2  Scrib.  on  Dower,  1  et  seq. 

bars  tlio  widow's  claim  :  Taylor  v.  High-  ^  4  Kent  Comm.  *50. 

berger,  G5  Iowa,  134 ;  Stidger  v.  Evans,  64  ^  McLean,  J.,  in  Johnston  v.  Vandyke, 

Iowa,  01.  6  McLean,  422,  440. 
VOL.  I.  —  16 


242  ESTATES    OF   DOWER    AND    CURTESY.  §  112 

As  a  right  of  dowcr  inchoate,^  yet  it  is  palpably  evident  that  as  a 
property.  ^igj^^  j^  n\\\?,t  be  an  interest  in  land,  and  that  interest 

is  proiJerty^  —  the  recognition  in  law  of  the  relation  of  the  thing  to 
the  person?'  This  is  recognized  in  the  provisions  contained  in  the 
statutes  of  some  of  the  States  securing  the  interest  of  the  wife  in 
case  of  sales  under  legal  proceedings  instituted  in  the  lifetime  of 
the  husband  •,^  and  so,  also,  means  are  pointed  out  to  compute  the 
value  of  inchoate  dower.*  The  value  of  such  dower  right  is  also 
recognized  as  a  sufficient  consideration  for  a  promissory  note,°  or 
a  promise  to  pay  money ,^  to  support  the  conveyance  to  the  wife  of 
other  lands  in  exchange  therefor  ;  ^  the  general  doctrine  is  stated 
to  be,  that  a  contract  between  husband  and  wife,  by  which  she 
receives  money  or  property  in  consideration  of  releasing  her  con- 
tingent right  of  dower,  will  be  sustained  in  equity .^  Courts  of 
equity  will  also  set  aside  and  declare  void  conveyances  by  the 
husband  for  the  purpose  of  defeating  dower.^ 

The  authorities  are  not  harmonious  on  the  question  whether 
inchoate  dower  is  subject  to  be  divested  or  modified  by  legislative 
As  affected  by  enactment.  In  many  cases  it  is  held  that  the  widow's 
if?er  luishancrs  ^ight  to  dowcr  is  governed  by  the  law  as  in  force  at 
title  vested.  ^j^q  ^jj^e  of  the  husbaud's  death,io  which  involves  the 
power  of  modifying  the  right  as  it  existed  under  a  previous  law.^i 

1  Moore  v.  New  York,  4  Sandf.  456;  Bullardr.  Briggs,  7  Pick.  533,  538;  Bissell 
s.  c.  8  N.  Y.  110;  Johnston  v.  Vandyke,  v.  Taylor,  41  Mich.  702;  Singree  v.  Welch, 
6  McLean,  422  ;   Witthaus  v.  Schack,  105     32  Oh.  St.  320. 

N.  Y.  3.32.  ^  2  Scrib.  on  Dower,  6,  §  6,  and  author- 
That  dower,  before  it  is  assigned,  can-  ities ;  Jones  i'.  Fleming,  104  N.  Y.  418. 
not  be   conveyed    by    the   widow   to   a  9  Petty  i;.  Petty,  4  B.  Mon.  215. 
stranger,  will  appear, /jos^,  §  114.  ^^  Walker  v.  Deaver,  5  Mo.  App.  139, 

2  Ante,  §§  1,  4,  6.  151 ;  Ware  v.  Owens,  42  Ala.  212,  215 ; 

3  Warford  i\  Noble,  9  Biss.  820  ;  Dwyer  Noel  v.  Ewing,  9  Ind.  37  ;  Lucas  r.  Sawyer, 
V.  Garlongli,  31  Oh.  St.  158, 161  ;  Wester-  17  Iowa,  517,  520;  Parker  v.  Small,  55 
field  V.  Kimmor,  82  Ind.  365,  368;  but  the  Iowa,  732.  Where  the  husband  alienates 
act  converting  tlie  wife's  inchoate  dower  tlie  property  without  a  relinquishment  by 
into  a  vested  estate  upon  sale  to  satisfy  the  wife,  the  law  in  force  at  the  time  of 
a  mortgage  was  held  unconstitutional,  in  alienation  governs  :  Peirce  v.  O'Brien,  29 
so  far  as  it  affects  mortgages  executed  Fed.  Rep.  402. 

before  its  passage :  Ilelphcnstine  y.  Mere-  ^i  Judge  Napton,  in  the  case  of  Ken- 

dith,  84  Ind.  1.  nerly  v.  Missouri  Ins.  Co.,  11  Mo.  204,  206, 

*  Jackson  i'.  Edwards,  7  Pai.  386,  408;  draws  the  distinction,  logical  enough  as 

Bartlett  r.  Janeway,  4  Sandf.  Ch.  306,  far  as  it  goes,  between  the  rights  of  the 

398 ;  DeWolf  y.  Murpliy,  11  R.  I.  6-30,  634.  widow  against  those  whose  interests  have 

•^  Nichols  V.  Nichols,   136  Mass.  256,  accrued    simultaneously    with    hers,    in 

258.  which  case  the  doctrine  is  held  applicable, 

^  Sykes  v.  Chadwick,  18  Wall.  141.  and   her  rights   against  purchasers  and 

7  Quarles  v.  Lacey,  4  Munf.  251,  258;  others  having  a  specific  lien,  whose  rights 


§  112  INCHOATE   DOWER.  243 

The  constitutionality  of  acts  destroying  inchoate  dower  in  lands 
appropriated  for  public  use  under  the  power  of  eminent  domain  is 
deduced  by  text-writers^  and  courts,^  from  the  nature  of  dower, 
as  a  positive  legislative  institution,  not  resulting  from  contract  ;3 
and  under  this  view  it  has  been  decided,  in  numerous  cases,  that 
there  is  no  constitutional  provision  protecting  the  dower  right  of 
the  wife,  before  its  consummation  by  the  death  of  the  husband, 
from  legislative  control.*  In  a  New  York  case  the  trial  court 
held  that  the  widow's  dower,  assigned  to  her  by  metes  and  bounds 
under  a  law  subsequently,  but  during  the  lifetime  of  the  husband, 
modified  by  an  act  subjecting  the  property  to  which  it  attached  to 
sale  for  the  payment  of  the  deceased  husband's  debts,  was  sub- 
ject to  sale  under  this  act;^  but  the  appellate  court  held  that  the 
order  of  sale  was  unjustified  where  the  dower  had  already  been 
assigned,^  the  judge  rendering  the  opinion  expressing  his  view 
that  an  act  modifying  the  rights  of  dower  has  no  application 
where  marriage  and  seisin  had  concurred  before  its  passage ;  but 
the  majority  of  the  court  refused  to  pass  upon  the  constitution- 
ality of  the  retrospective  provisions  of  such  act.'^ 

It  seems  to  be  the  general  impression,  that  inchoate  dower 
should  be  recognized  as  a  right  entitled  to  the  same  protection  as 
other  property,  and  that  legislation  abolishing  dower,  or  materi- 
ally modifying  it,  should  not  be  permitted  to  operate  retrospect- 
ively in  any  sense.^     Dicta  and  dissenting  opinions  to  this  effect 

must   be   determined  by  the  law  under  Iowa,  20,  22,  citing  earlier  Iowa  cases; 

which    tliey    originated.       This    case   is  Barbour  v.  Barbour,  46  Me.  0, 14  ;  Merrill 

recognized  in  Thomas  r.  Hesse,  34  Mo.  13,  v.  Sherburne,  dictum  by  Woodbury,  J., 

24,  and  the  doctrine  established  is,  that  1  N.  H.  199,  214;  Weaver  r.  Gregg,  6  Oil. 

the  right  of  dower,  before  its  consumma-  St.  547,  549;  Mclizet's  Appeal,  17  Pa.  St. 

tion  by  the  husband's  death,  is  liable  to  449,  455 ;   Randall  i-.   Kreiger,  23   Wall, 

legislative  interference,  while  the  rights  137,    148  ;    Gnerin    v.    Moore,    25    Minn, 

of  purchasers,  mortgagees,  and  others  in  462,  464  ;  Morrison  ?'.  Rice,  35  Minn.  43(i. 

the  same  lands  are  protected  against  any  ^  Lawrence  v.  stiller,  1  Sandf.  516,  548. 

modification.       The  same   distinction  is  ®  Lawrence  r.  Miller,  2  N.  Y.  245,  253. 

recognized   in   other  cases,  for  instance,  See  as  to  dower  consummate,  post,  §  115. 

Boyd  V.  Harrison,  36  Ala.  533,  538.  '  lb.,  p.  253. 

1  2  Dillon's  Mun.  Cor.  §  594  (3d  ed.).  »  2  Scrib.  on  Dower,  20,  §  18.     The 

2  See  cases  cited,  §  111,  p.  239,  note  7  author  refers  to  Cord  on  Rights  of  Married 
et  seq.,  and  infra,  note  4.  Women,  265,   note  ;    and  calls  attention 

8  The  pith  of  this  argument  is  stated  to  to   ilie  significant  fact,  that  the  English 

be,  that  "  what  the  law  creates,  that  it  may  Dower  Act  (3  &  4  Wm.  IV.  c.  105)  rr.akes 

destroy  "  :  2  Scrib.  on  Dower,  18,  §  14.  no  attempt,  even    under  the  exercise  of 

*  Boyd  V.  Harrison,  36  Ala.  533,  537;  Parliamentary  powers  not  restricted  by 

Noel  V.  Ewing,  9  Ind.  37,  43;  Strong?-,  constitutional    limitations,    to    interfere 

Clem,  12  Ind.  37,  40 ;  Moore  v.  Kent,  37  with  existing  dower  rights. 


244  ESTATES   OF   DOWER    AND   CURTESY.  §  112 

are  often  met  with,  and  in  Missouri  it  is  unhesitatingly  announced 
that  the  legislature  has  no  power  to  divest  inchoate  dower.  An 
act  under  consideration  by  the  Supreme  Court  was  held  not  to 
affect  such  right;  "and  if  it  did,"  adds  Sherwood,  J.,  rendering 
the  opinion,  "  it  would  violate  that  constitutional  j^rovision  which 
forbids  that  any  one  be  deprived  of  property  '  without  due  process 
of  law,'  and  would  be  a  legislative  attempt  to  take  the  property 
of  one  person  and  bestow  it  upon  another."  ^  A  case  in  Georgia, 
also,  holds  that  the  wife  cannot  be  deprived  of  her  inchoate  dower 
by  an  act  of  the  legislature.^     So  in  Rhode  Island.-^ 

§  113.  Dower  as  affected  by  Acts  of  the  Husband.  —  It  is  obvious 
that  the  conveyance  of  any  property  before  the  marriage  places  it 
Alienation  be-  bcyoud  tlic  dowcr  right  of  a  subsequent  wife,  because 
fore  marriage.  \j^  jg  ^q^  owucd  by  the  husbaud  during  coverture,* 
even  if  the  deed  to  property  so  conveyed  has  not  been  registered;^ 
and  so  of  lands  exchanged  before  the  marriage,  or  conveyed  in 
fee  in  trust  to  uses  to  be  appointed  by  the  grantor,  although  the 
appointment  be  made  after  the  marriage.^  Nor  is  the  wife  en- 
titled to  dower  in  any  estate  which  was  subject  to  an  existing 
claim  or  incumbrance  against  the  husband,  either  at  law  or  in 
equity,  at  the  time  of  the  marriage,  although  the  conveyance  or 
foreclosure  occurred  subsequent  thereto,"  under  eitlier  a  mortgage, 
lease,  statute,  or  recognizance  by  which  he  was  bound  in  good 
faith  before  the  marriage.^  A  conveyance  made  on  the  day  of 
the  marriage,  although  in  point  of  time  before  the  same  took 
place,  is  deemed  to  have  been  made  during  coverture,  and  will 

1  'Williams  v.  Courtney,  77  Mo.  587,  veyed  to  a  third  person,  who  paid  tlie 
588.  levying  creditor,  and  took   a   release   to 

2  Royston  v.  Royston,  21  Ga.  161,  172.     himself  of  his  interest  in  the  premises,  it 

3  Talbot  V.  Talbot,  14  R.  I.  57.  was  held  that  the  levy  was  extingiiislied, 
*  1  Scrib.  on  Dower,  583,  §  1.  the  debtor  became  seised,  and  dower 
6  Pratt  V.  Skolfield,  45  Me.  386,  389  ;     attached  to  his  widow  :  Mayo  v.  Hamlin, 

Blood  V.  Blood,  23  Pick.  80,  85.  73  Me.  182. 

6  Link  V.  Edmondson,  19  Mo.  487;  »  Jackson  v.  Dewitt,  6  Cow.  .316; 
Whithed  V.  Mallory,  4  Cush.  1-38,  140;  Rands  ?•.  Kendall,  15  Oh.  671,  678 ;  Sand- 
Baker  V.  Chase,  6  Hill,  482  ;  Tate  v.  Tate,  ford  v.  McLean,  3  Pai.  117,  123 ;  Shiell  v. 
1  Dev.  &  B.  Eq.  22,  28 ;  Gaines  v.  Gaines,  Sloan,  22  S.  C.  151.  The  general  rule  is 
9  B.  Mon.  295  ;  Firestone  v.  Firestone,  2  stated  to  be,  that  "  the  wife's  dower  is 
Oh.  St.  415,  417.  liable  to  be  defeated  by  every  subsisting 

■J  Gully  V.  Ray,  18  B.  Mon.  107,  113;  claim  or  incumbrance  in  law  or  equity 

Brown    i'.   Williams,   31   Me.   403,   406;  existing  before  the  inception  of  the-title, 

Fontaine   v.   Dunlap,  82  Ky.   321.     But  and  which  would  have  defeated  the  hus- 

where  a  levy  was  made  on  his  lands  prior  band's  seisin  "  :  4  Kent,  *50. 
to  his  marriage,  and  he  subsequently  con- 


§  113         DOWER    AS    AFFECTED    BY   ACTS   OF    HUSBAND.  245 

not  deprive  the  wife  of  her  dower.^  So,  if  a  conveyance  before 
marriage  is  void,  or,  if  voidable,  it  is  avoided  during  coverture, 
the  wife  is  of  course  endowed.^ 

A  conveyance  made  by  the  husband  on  the  eve  of  marriage,  for 
the  purpose  of  defrauding  his  intended  wife  of  her  dower  estate,  is 
void  as  to  her  right  against  the  grantee  or  purchaser  ^, 

"  "  °  '■  Conveyance 

from  him  with  notice;  and  she  may  recover  dower  in  infraiidof 
such  case,  as  if  no  conveyance  had  been  made.^  And 
deeds  of  gift,  executed  before  but  not  delivered  until  after  the 
marriage,  are  no  impediment  to  the  right  of  dower  in  tlie  lands 
therein  conveyed.*  The  wife  may  protect  her  inchoate  dower  by 
action  to  set  aside  conveyances  in  fraud  of  her  dower  ;^  but 
the  heirs  cannot  have  it  set  aside,  because  it  is  no  fraud  against 
thcm.*^ 

At  common  law,  and  in  those  of  the  States  in  which  the  widow 
is  entitled  to  dower  in  all  lands  of  which  the  husband  was  seised 
during  coverture,  the  husband,  self-evidently,  cannot  Alienation  dur- 
defeat  it  by  any  act  in  the  nature  of  an  alienation  '"s  coverture. 
or  charge.^  As,  however,  a  recovery  by  judgment  against  a  hus- 
band in  a  real  action  defeats  the  wife's  dower,  the  coiiusn-e 
husband  might  defraud    her  by  collusively  suffering:  '■eco^'ene? 

°  -'  ./  c    again ?t  the 

judgment  to  go  against  himself.  To  give  the  wife  an  husband. 
efficient  remedy  in  such  case,  the  Statute  of  Westminster  II.,  c.  4, 
enacted  that  where  the  husband  had  made  default  in  a  suit 
against  him  for  land,  the  wife  should  be  heard  to  demand  dower ; 
which  is  said  to  be  but  a  recital  of  the  common  law :  "  For  the 
common  law  ought  to  be  intended  where  the  husband  had  right, 
and  he  who  recovered  had  no  right ;  and  so  is  the  law  to  this  day 
if  the  husband  lose  by  default.  And  so  was  the  common  law 
before  the  making  of  that  statute ;  so  that  the  statute  is  but  the 
affirmance  of  the  common  law  on  this  point."  ^ 

The  substance  of  this  statute  has  been  re-enacted  in  several 

1  Stewart  v.  Stewart,  3  J.  J.  Marsh.  Brown  v.  Bronson,  35  Mich.  415,  417; 
48 ;  so  of  a  judgment  entered  on  tlie  day  Bahcock  r.  Babeock,  53  How.  Pr.  97,  101  : 
of  the  marriage:  Ingram  v.  Morris,  4  Kelly  r.  McGrath.  70  Ala.  75,  82;  Jones  i'. 
Harr.  111.  Jones,  04  Wis.  301. 

2  1  Scrib.  on  Dower,  585,  §  7.  4  i\iiiier  v.  Stepper,  32  Mich.  194,  199. 

3  Cransony  Cranson,4Mich.230,235;  5  Babcock  v.  Babcock,  53  How.  Pr. 
Swaine  v.  Ferine,  5  John.  Ch.  482,  489 ;  97,  104. 

Petty  V.  Petty,  4  B.  Mou.  215,  217  ;  Little-  6  Rowland  v.  Rowland,  2  Sneed,  543. 

ton  V.  Littleton,  1  Dev.  &  B.  L.  327,  329 ;  ^  Grady  v.  MeCorkle,  57  Mo.l72,  176. 

Kowland  v.  Rowland,  2  Sneed,  543,  545 ;  8  pgrt  prof.  Book,  §  376. 


246  ESTATES    OF   DOWEll   AND    CURTESY.  §  110 

States,  and  the  wife  is  protected  from  the  effects  of  collusive  re- 
covery against  the  husband,  and  from  his  laches  in  defending 
against  improper  actions  on  general  principles  of  equity .^  And 
it  has  been  held  that  a  husband  cannot  deprive  his  wife  of  dower 
by  taking  a  conveyance  of  land,  purchased  with  his  own  money 
during  coverture,  to  himself  for  life,  with  remainder  to  his  child.^ 
UQ^.Qr  in  Although  the  wife  have  joined  in  a  mortgage  of  the 

equitv  of  re-      Jmsband's  lands,  her  dower  still  attaches  to  the  equity 

clemption  sold  '  l        J 

on  execution,  of  redemption  afterward  sold  under  an  execution 
against  the  husband.^ 

The  weight  of  authority  seems  strongly  to  support  the  claim 
of  widows  to  dower  in  lands  conveyed  by  husband  and  wife  in 
Conveyances  fraud  of  Creditors,  subsequently  avoided  by  them.^ 
I'if";?,"!'^"*^  "  A  fraudulent  deed  set  aside  at  the  instance  of  credi- 
cieditors.  ^Qj.g  cannot  bar  the  surviving  wife  of  dower  as  against 

the  creditors  or  purchasers  under  a  mere  decretal  sale."  ^  It  is 
held,  also,  that  where  the  husband  conveyed  the  property  to  his 
■wife  in  fee  in  fraud  of  creditors,  such  conveyance  does  not,  on 
being  set  aside  for  the  fraud,  affect  her  dower  right,  because  tiiere 
can  be  no  merger  of  a  less  estate  in  a  greater  where  the  latter  is 
void.*^  But  where  the  widow  takes  dower,  not  as  at  common  law, 
in  the  property  of  which  the  husband  was  seised  during  covert- 
ure, but  in  that  of  which  he  was  seised  at  the  time  of  liis  death,''' 
the  widow  is  not  entitled  to  dower  in  land  fraudulently  conveyed 
to  her  by  the  husband,  and  after  his  death  set  aside  at  the  in- 
stance of  his  creditors ;  because  at  the  time  of  his  death  he  was 
not  seised,  and  the  subsequent  avoidance  related  only  to  creditors, 
leaving  the  conveyance  to  the  wife  in  full  force.^  Nor  is  the  wife 
affected  by  the  fraud  of  the  husband  in  consummating  his  con- 
tract of  sale,  although  she  unite  with  him  in  conveying  the  lands.^ 
So  where  the  wife  joins  her  husband  in  a  deed  or  mortgage,  which 

1  Gilson  V.  Hutchinson,  120  Mass.  27;  Malloney  v.  Horan,  49  N.  Y.  Rep.  Ill, 
Farrow  v.  Farrow,  1  Del.  Ch.  457  ;  1  Scrib.  119 ;  Richardson  v.  Wynian,  62  Me.  280, 
on  Dower,  686,  §  15;  4  Kent,  48;  1  Hil-  283;  Lockett  v.  James,  8  Bush,  28,  30; 
Hard's  R.  Prop,,  2(1  ed,  147,  §40;  see,  as  to  Robinson  v.  Bates,  3  Met.  (Mass.)  40,  43; 
conveyances  of  the  husband  in  fraud  of  Stowe  v.  Steele,  114  111.  382,  885. 
dower,  infm,  p.  247,  note  7.  *"  Humes  v.  Scruggs,  64  Ala.  40,  49  ; 

2  Crecelius  v.  Horst,  11  Mo.  App.  304.  Malloney  v.  Horan,  12  Abb.  Pr.(N.  s.)  289, 

3  Harrison  ?■.  Eldridge,  7  N.  J.  L.  392;  294;  s.c.  49N.  Y.  Ill,  119;  Wyman  ?;.  Fox, 
Barker  v.  Parker,   17  Mass.  564.     Ante,  59  Me.  100,  citing  earlier  Maine  cases. 

p.  237,  n.  5.  ^  See  ante,  §  106. 

4  Munger  v.  Perkins,  62  Wis.  499,  501.  ^  Bond  v.  Bond,  16  Lea,  306,  308. 
6  Dugan  V.  Massey,  6   Bush,  82,  83  ;  ^  Wiswall  v.  Hall,  3  Pai.  313. 


§  113         DOWER   AS   AFFECTED   BY   ACTS   OF   HUSBAND.  247 

is,  however,  defeated  by  a  sale  on  execution  for  a  prior  judgment, 
she  may  cUiim  her  dower.^  I>ut  if  a  deed  is  not  entirely  void, 
but  contains  some  element  or  clause  upon  which  it  becomes  oper- 
ative, although  fraudulent  and  void  in  other  respects,  the  relin- 
quishment of  dower  will  be  enforced  ;2  and  in  New  Jersey  it  was 
decided  that  the  widow's  dower  is  barred  by  her  relinquishment 
in  a  deed,  although  it  be  set  aside  for  fraud.^ 

Under  the  English  Dower  Act,*  and  in  those  of  the  States  in 
■which  the  widow  is  endowed  of  the  lands  of  which  her  husband 
died  seised  or  possessed,^  the  doctrine  that  the  bus-  conveyance  in 
band  cannot  defeat  his  wife's  dower  bv  any  act  in  the  fraii.d  of  dower 

"  •'  during  covert- 

nature  of  an  alienation  or  charge  is,  of  course,  inap-  "•t^- 

plicablc.  But  her  dower  rights  are  nevertheless  protected  against 
the  husband's  fraudulent  attempts  to  deprive  her  thereof  by  vol- 
untary conveyance  or  collusive  charges  upon  his  lands  during 
coverture.  "  The  notion,"  say  the  court  in  Tiiayer  v.  Thayer,^ 
"  that  the  riglit  of  the  wife  to  dower  in  the  husband's  lifetime  is 
a  nonentity^  and  not  susceptible  of  fraud  being  perpetrated  of  it, 
is  unsatisfactory,  and,  we  think,  unsound,  and  at  war  with  the 
principles  of  justice.  Though  the  right  may  be  inchoate,  it 
should  be  protected  against  the  mala  fide  acts  of  the  husband." 
A  conveyance  without  valuable  consideration,  with  the  intent  to  de 
feat  the  wife  of  her  dower,  is  void,  and  will  be  set  aside  ; '  and  so  a 
deed  to  a  stranger,  although  he  paid  full  consideration,  if  he  knew 

1  HinchliflFe  v.  Sliea,  103  N.  Y.  153.  6  14  vt.  107,  120. 

2  Cantrill  i-.  Risk,  7  Bush,  158,  160,  in  "^  Thayer  v.  Thayer,  supra  :  Ladd  v. 
wliich  a  deed  was  held  void  as  to  tlie  Ladd,  14  Vt.  185.  192,  in  which  case, 
grantee,  but  operative  under  tlie  law  of  however,  the  invalidity  of  the  deed  is 
Kentucky  as  a  conveyance  in  favor  of  predicated  upon  want  of  lawful  delivery ; 
creditors  generally ;  Manhattan  Co.  v.  McGee  v.  MoGee,  4  Ired.  L.  105,  109, 
Evertson,  6  Pai.  457,  4G5,  in  which  the  citing  Littleton  v.  Littleton,  1  Dev.  &  B. 
deed  contained  a  declaration  of  trust  327,  and  Norwood  r.  Marrow,  4  Dev.  &,  B. 
which  constituteda  lien  upon  the  premises.  442;  Killinger '•.  Reidenhauer,  6  Serg.  & 

8  Den  V.  Johnson,  18  N.  J.  L.  87,  90;  R.  531,5.33;  McCIurgr.  Schwartz.  87  Pa. 

the  New  York  case  of  Meyer  v.  Mohr,  to  St.  521,  524 ;  Vanleer  i-.  Vanleer,  3  Tenn. 

the  same  effect,  in  19  Abb.  Pr.  299,  304,  Ch.  23,  holding  that  the  facts  constituting 

was,  as  appears  from  the  case  of  Mallone}'  the  fraud   must  be  set  out  in   the  bill ; 

V.  Horan,  supra,   disapproved.     See  also  Crecelius   v.    Horst,    11    Mo.   App.    304; 

Hincliliffe  r.  Shea,  103  N.  Y.  153,  155.  Jiggitts   v.  Jiggitts,   40   xMiss.    718,  721 ; 

4  3  &  4  Wm.  IV.  c.  105.  Rabbitt  v.  Gaither,  67  Md.  94  (in  this  case 

5  See  ante,  §  106,  as  to  the  States  in  the  property  was  in  reality  bought  by  the 
which  the  common  law  rule  is  modified,  husband,  but  taken  in  the  name  of  a  third 
The  term  "  possessed,"  used  in  these  party  in  order  to  defraud  the  wife  of  her 
States,   is   synonymous   with   "  seised  "  :  dower). 

Stewart  v.  Stewart,  5  Conn.  317,  320. 


248  ESTATES   OF   DOWER   AND   CURTESY.  §  114 

that  the  intention  was  to  defeat  the  wife's  dower.^  In  Missouri, 
where  the  statute  gives  the  widow  the  right  of  election  between 
dower  as  at  common  law,  and  to  take  a  child's  part  of  the  prop- 
erty remaining  after  payment  of  debts,  it  was  held  that  such  elec- 
tion ratified  a  conveyance  to  a  daughter  of  land  purchased  with 
his  own  money,  but  in  which  he  took  only  a  life  interest,  causing 
the  remainder  to  be  deeded  to  his  daughter  by  a  former  wife,  for 
the  purpose  of  defrauding  his  wife  of  dower;  and  that  the  wife 
was  not  entitled  to  a  child's  part  in  such  land.^  The  disposition 
of  personal  property  (in  which  dower  is  given  by  statute  in  this 
State)  in  fraud  of  the  widow's  dower  therein  has  repeatedly  been 
held  void  as  to  the  widow.^ 

§  114.  The  Wife's  Relinquishment  of  Dower.  — The  usual  method 
employed  at  common  law  to  bar  the  wife's  inchoate  dower  by  her 
own  act,  was  by  levying  a  fine  or  suffering  a  recovery, 
ment  of  dower  Thcsc  are  abolishcd  by  statute  in  England,*  and  have 
by  t  le  wi  e.  rarely  been  resorted  to  in  the  United  States  ;  ^  the 
custom  of  London,  effectually  barring  the  wife's  dower  by  means 
of  a  deed  of  bargain  and  sale  by  husband  and  wife,  properly  ac- 
knowledged by  the  wife  after  a  separate  examination  and  duly 
proclaimed  and  enrolled,  was  adopted  in  this  country  at  an  early 
day.^  A  conveyance  by  the  husband,  in  which  the  wife  joined,  is 
held  sufficient,  in  most  States,  to  carry  her  dower  without  a  relin- 
quishment eo  nomine? 

1  Brewer  v.  Connell,  11  Humph.  500.  others,  and  are  now  wholly  disused.  Re- 
This  decision  is  based  upo  the  provisions  coveries  were  in  use  in  Massachusetts, 
of  the  statute  on  the  subject.  but  not  fines.     They  were  both  in  use  in 

2  Crecelius  v.  Horst,  4  Mo.  App.  419.  Maryland,  but  never  in  Virginia.     Note 

3  Davis  V.  Davis,  5  Mo.  18.3;  Stone  v.  to  1  Washb.  R.  Prop.  *199,  §  10,  referring 
Stone,  18  Mo.  389;  Tucker  v.  Tucker,  29  to  Stearns,  Keal  Act.  11 ;  Chase's  Case,  1 
Mo.  .350.     But  in  such  case  the  widow  Bland,  Ch.  206,  229. 

cannot    assert    her    claim    as   a   charge  ^  2   Scrib.    Dower,  286,   §  8 ;   Chase's 

against  her  husband's  general  estate  ;  she  case,  1  Bland  Ch.  206,  229  ;    Powell  v. 

must  pursue  the  property  in  the  hands  of  Monson  Company,  3  Mas.  347,  351,  per 

the  donees :  Straat  v.  O'Neil,  84  Mo.  68.  Story,  J.  ;  Davey  v.  Turner,  1  Dall.  11, 

"  Before  a  disposition  of  personal  property  13  ;  Jackson  v.  Gilchrist,  15  John.  89, 109; 

by  the  husband  is  avoided,  as  in  fraud  of  Moore  v.  Rake,  26  N.  J.  L.  574,  578;  Man- 

the  dower  rights  of  the  wife,  the  disposi-  Chester  v.  Hough,  5  Mas.  67,  68. 
tion  should  be  shown  to  be  testamentary  ^  Learned  i:.   Cutler,  18  Pick.  9,  11 ; 

in  its  character,  and   should  be  clearly  Gray  v.  McCune,   23  Pa.    St.   447,  450; 

shown  to  have  been  made  for  the  purpose  Gillilan  v.  Swift  14  Hun,  574;  Meyer  v. 

of  defrauding  her  of  her  dower  " :  Cre-  Gossett,  infra ;  Dutton  v.  Stuart,  41  Ark. 

celius  V.  Horst,  89  Mo.  356,  359.  101 ;  Smith  o.  Handy,  16  Oh.  191,  229; 

*  3  &  4  Wm.  IV.  c.  74.  Bute  v.  Kneale,  109  111.  652  (since  the 

*  Fines  and  recoveries  were  once  in  statute  of  1869)  ;  Witthaus  v.  Schack, 
force  in  some  of  the  States,  but  not  in  105  N.  Y.  332. 


§  114         THE  wife's  relinquishment  of  dower.  249 

An  essential  requisite  of  the  release  or  relinquishment  by  the 
wife  is,  in  some  of  the  States,  that  the  husband  and  wife  must 
join  in  the  deed.     An  indorsement  by  the  wife  upon 
the  husband's  deed,  written  several  months  afterward,  wife  m"ust1"in 
"  I  agree  in  the  above  conveyance,"  was  held  not  to  "'  'e'l'iqu'sh- 
relinquish   her  dower  in  the  premises  conveyed,  for 
two  reasons :  that  the  wife's  act  was  not  joined  in  by  the  hus- 
band, and  that  the  words  constituted  no  relincjuishment  of  dower. ^ 
In  Iowa,  where  the  widow  takes  one  third  of  the  husband's  real 
estate  in  lieu  of  dower,  a  wife  who,  in  consideration  of  the  pay- 
ment to  her  of  the  purchase  money  stipulated  in  a  deed  of  war- 
ranty executed  by  her  husband  in  which  she  had  not  joined,  orally 
agreed  that  she  would  never  make  any  claim  of  dower  in  the  land, 
was  held  estopped,  as  well  as  her  heirs,  from  claiming  dower  in 
the  land  against  the  vendee  and  his  grantees.^     But  this  decision 
was  based   upon  the  purely  equitable  doctrine  of  estoppel,  and 
dissented  from  by  one  of  the  judges  on  the  ground  that  inchoate 
dower  cannot  be  relinquished  by  parol.^     In  the  States  of  Arkan- 
sas,* Delaware,^  Illinois,^   Indiana,'^    Kentucky,^    Maine,^  Massa- 
chusetts,^*^ Michigan,  New  Jersey ,^^  Ohio,^^  Pennsylvania,^^  South 
Carolina,  and  Virginia,^'*  it  has  been  held   that  the  husband  is 
required  to  join  in  the  wife's  relinquishment  of  dower.     But  it  is 
not  necessary  that  the  conveyance  should  be  simultaneously  exe- 
cuted by  both,  or  even  on  the  same  day  ;  it  is  sufficient  if  it  be 
executed  by  her  before  it  is  delivered,  although  it  had  before  been 
executed  and  acknowledged  by  the  husband. ^^  In  Ala-  wife  may 
bama,  Florida,  Maine,!*^   Maryland,   Minnesota,   New  by'separL 
Hampshire,^^  Oregon,  Rhode  Island,  and  Wisconsin,  '^^^'^• 
the  relinquishment  may  be  by  separate  deed.^^ 

1  Hall   V.   Savage,  4   Mas.  273,   274;  «  Applegate  ?•.  Gracy,  9  Dana,  215,217. 
Sliaw  V.  Russ,  14  Me.  432,  434;  French          ^  French  v.  Peters,  supra. 

V.  Peter?,  33  Me.  396,  408.  »'  Hall  v.  Savage,  snpm. 

2  Dunlap   V.  Thomas,   69   Iowa,   358,         "  Doilge  v.  Aycrigg,  12  N.  J.  Eq.  82. 
distinguishing  this  case  from  the  principle         i-  Williams  v.  Robson,  6  Oh.  St.  510, 
applicable  to  cases  where  inclioate  dower  515. 

is  attempted  to  be  sold  independent  of  the  is  uip  v.  Campbell,  19  Pa.  St.  361,  362. 

property  to  which  it  attaches,  as  announced  !■!  Sexton   v.  Pickering,  3  Rand.  468, 

in  McKee  v.  Reynolds,  213  Iowa,  578.  472. 

3  Dunlap  V.  Thomas,  supra,  p.  362.  i5  Langhorne  v.  Hobson,  4  Leigh,  224; 
*  Witter  1-.  Biscoe,  13  Ark.  422,  430;  Newell  v.  Anderson,  7  Oh.  St.  12;  Dun- 
Meyer  V.  Gossett,  38  Ark.  377,  380.  das  v.  Hitchcock,  12  How.  256 ;  Ford  v. 

^  Harris  v.  Burton,  4  Harr.  66,  67.  Gregory,  10  B.  Mon.  175. 

6  Osborn  v.  Horine,  19  111.  124,  125.  lo  Rev.  St.  1883,  cli.  103,  §  6. 

T  Scott  V.  Purcell,  7  Blackf.  66,  69 ;  "  Shepherd  v.  Howard.  2  N.  H.  507. 

Davis  V.  Bartholomew,  3  Ind.  485,  490.  is  2  Scrib.  Dower,  293,  §  19. 


250  ESTATES    OF    DOWER    AND    CURTESY.  §  114 

It  has  been  held  in  Delaware^  and  Vermont,-  that  a  married 
woman  cannot  execute  a  valid  power  of  attorney  to  convey  lands, 
Reiinnuishini'-  G^'^n  in  Connection  with  her  husband  ;  and  in  Virginia, 
by  attorney.  i\^r^^  g^  (j^g^j  Qf  husband  and  wife,  executed  under  a 
power  of  attorney,  is  valid  as  to  the  husband,  though  void  as  to 
the  wife.^  In  Kentucky  a  non-resident  married  woman  may 
convey  by  agent  under  her  power  of  attorney,  though  not  a  resi- 
dent.^ In  Missouri,  where  the  statute  provides  that  the  wife  may 
relinquish  her  dower  by  joint  deed  with  the  husband,  and  that 
"  a  married  woman  may  convey  her  real  estate,  or  relinquish  her 
dower  by  a  power  of  attorney  authorizing  its  conveyance,  exe- 
cuted and  acknowledged  by  her  jointly  with  her  husband,"  it  is 
held  that  a  power  of  attorney  executed  jointly  with  the  husband, 
appointing  an  attorney  to  join  with  her  husband  in  any  convey- 
ance the  husband  may  make  of  his  real  estate,  and,  for  her,  to 
execute  and  deliver  any  such  conveyance,  and  to  relinquish  her 
dower  in  any  real  estate  so  conveyed,  is  sufficiently  in  compliance 
with  the  statute,  and  a  deed  made  by  such  attorney  in  pursuance 
of  his  power  is  effectual  to  bar  the  wife's  dower  in  the  land  con- 
veyed.^ In  some  States  the  statute  authorizes  the  wife  to  exercise 
the  power  to  convey  by  attorney.^ 

Where  a  seal  is  required  for  the  effective  conveyance  of  real 
estate,  the  relinquishment  of  dower  must  be  under 
ment  uniier  scal.  An  instrument,  though  otherwise  conforming 
^^^  ■  to  the  law,  if  unsealed,  will  not  bar  dower.'     In  Ala- 

bama,^ lowa,^  and  Kentucky ,1°  it  is  provided  by  statute  that  real 
estate  may  be  conveyed  by  an  instrument  not  under  seal. 

The  mere  signing  and  sealing  of  the  deed  by  the  wife  without 
words  constituting  a  grant  or  release  contained  therein,  is  ineffect- 
iiitention  to  ual  to  bar  her  right ;  ^^  nor  can  the  omission  be  aided 
bfrdicated"'^  ^y  ^^^  certificate  of  acknowledgment.^^     The  wife  is 

1  Lewis  V.  Coxe,  5  Harr.  401.  Moore,  4  Gray,  600;  Walsh  v.  Kelly.  o4 

2  Sumner  v.  Conant,  10  Vt.  9,  19.  Pa.  St.  84  ;  Brown  v.  Starke,  3  Dana,  316. 

3  Shanks  v.  Lancaster,  5  Gratt.  110,  »  Shelton  v.  Armor,  13  Ala.  647. 

118.  ^  Pierson  v.  Armstrong,  1  Iowa,  282, 

*  Gen.  St.  1887,  ch.  24,  §  36.  293. 

5  De  Bar  v.  Priest,  6  Mo.  App.  531.  3"  Gen.  St.  1887,  ch.  22,  §  2. 

6  So  in  Ohio,  Pennsylvania,  Rhode  "  Lothrop  v.  Foster,  51  Me.  367,  369 ; 
Island,  and  probably  other  States  ;  in  Lufkin  v.  Curtis,  13  Mass.  223 ;  Powell 
Indiana,  Iowa,  and  Minnesota  such  was  v.  Monson  Company,  3  Mas.  347,  349; 
the  law  before  dower  was  abolished  there.  McFarland  v.  Febigers,  7  Oh.  194;  Agri- 

^  Manning   v.   Laboree,   33  Me.  343  ;     cultural  Bank  v.  Rice,  4  How.  225,  241. 
Sargent  v.  Roberts,  34  Me.  135;  Giles  v.         i'-'  Davis  v.  Bartholomew,  3  Ind.  485. 


§  114  THE  wife's  relinquishment  of  dower.  251 

not    concluded   by   the    contents   of   a   deed   signed   by    her    in 
blank,  if  iilled  up  differently  from  what  was  intended  when  she 
signed  it,  but  may  show  the  fraud,  even   against   an  innocent 
grantee,  in  protection  of  her  inchoate  dower.i     g^t  ^^^^  ^^^  ^^^.^^j. 
the  release  is  not  required  to  be  in  technical  form  ;  cai  form  is 

nccGssurv- 

any  apt  words  indicating  her  intention  to  grant,  or 
relinquisli,    or   release   her   interest   in   the    land,   will    bar   her 
dower.2 

The  preponderance  of  authority  seems  to  hold  the  relinquish- 
ment of  dower  by   an  infant  feme  covert  wholly   ineffectual  to 
divest  her  right.^     No  act  of  disaffirmance  is  neccs-  j.^,i„^„j,,,. 
sary  on  the  part  of  the  wife  before  bringing  her  suit;^  '^^if^''' 
nor  is  she  required  to  refund  to  the  purchaser  any 
part  of  the  purchase  money  paid  by  him  for  the  premises  in  which 
dower  is  claimed.^ 

In  the  absence  of  statutory  regulations  no  power  exists  whereby 
the  dower  of  an  insane  wife  can  be  divested,  or  in  any  manner 
impaired.    In  some  of  the  States  provision  is  made  for  p^g,;^^,,,,^. 
the  disincumbering  of  the  husband's  estate  of  the  con-  mem  by  an 

^  .       .  insane  \s'ite. 

tingcnt  dower  of  his  wife  where  the  latter  is  msaue, 
and  therefore  incompetent  to  act  in  her  own  behalf.^  In  Ala- 
bama," m  a  case  in  which  it  was  held  by  the  Supreme  Court  that 
the  appointment  of  a  guardian  to  an  insane  wife  was  void  for  the 
want  of  notice  to  her,  the  judge  delivering  the  opinion  remarked, 
"  And  were  it  otherwise,  I  apprehend  the  guardian  of  a  lunatic 
wife  can  have  no  authority  to  relinquish  her  dower  in  the  real 
estate  of  her  husband."  In  Illinois  it  is  held  that  a  court  of 
equity  cannot  interfere  to  deprive  an  insane  married  ^^  ^  .^^  ^^ 
woman  of  dower.^     In  Missouri  there  can  be  no  re-  an  in.<ane 

.  husband. 

linquishment  of  dower  by  the  wife  of  an  insane  person, 

1  Conover  v.  Porter,  14  Oh.  St.  450,  p.  187);  see  authorities  cited  in  2  Scrib. 
453.  on  Dower,  301,  §§  31,  32. 

2  Stearns  v.  Swift,  8  Pick.  532,  535  ;  *  Priest  v.  Cummings,  20  Wend.  338 ; 
Frost  f.  Deering,  21  Me.  156,  159 ;  Usher  Hughes  v.  Watson,  10  Oh.  127,  134; 
V.  Ricliardson,  29  Me.  415,  416  ;  Gillilan  Sandford  v.  McLean,  3  Pai.  117  ;  Thomas 
V.   Swift,  14   Hun,  574;  Edwards  v.   Sul-  i'.  Gammel,  6  Leigli,  9. 

livan,  20  Iowa,  502.  ^  Sliaw  v.  Bo3d,  5  S.  &  R.  309  ;  Mark- 

3  Adams  v.  Palmer,  51  Me.  480,  486;  ham  r.  Merritt,  7  How.  (Miss.)  437. 
Applegate   v.   Conner,  03   Ind.  185  (hut  ^  So  in  the  States  of  Iowa,  Kentucky, 
under  tlie  statute  of  this  State  an  infant  Massachusetts,  Michigan,  Missouri,  Ohio, 
wife  may  now  join  her  husband  in  the  Virginia,  and  Wisconsin, 
conveyance  of  his  real  estate  with  the  '  Eslava  v.  Lepretre,  21  Ala.  .504,  529. 
same  effect  as  if  she  were  of  full  age  :  §  Ex  parte  McElwain,  29  111.  442. 


252  ESTATES   OF   DOWER   AND   CURTESY.  §   Hi 

because  under  the  statute  dower  can  be  relinquished  only  by 
joint  deed,  etc.,  and  the  deed  of  an  insane  person  can  have  no 
validity.^ 

Under  the  statute  de  modo  levandi  fines,^  it  was  required,  if  a 
married  woman  was  made  party  to  a  fine,  that  she  should  first  be 
Separate  ex-  examined  by  four  justices  of  the  bench  or  in  eyre  to 
aiiiiiiation  and    ascertain  her  consent ;  and  when  conveyance  by  deed 

acknowleclg-  '  *'  '' 

meiit.  Yi^as  substituted  instead, ^   an    acknowledgment  on  a 

separate  examination  of  the  married  woman  was  required.  This 
rule  is  adopted  in  most  of  the  States  of  the  Union,  and  unless  the 
execution  of  the  deed,  as  her  voluntary  act,  be  acknowledged  by 
her  upon  an  examination  separate  and  apart  from  her  husband, 
it  will,  as  to  her,  be  absolutely  void.  The  States  of  Connecticut, 
Indiana,  Iowa,  Kansas,  Maine,  Maryland,  Massachusetts,  Michi- 
gan, Minnesota,  New  Hampshire,  Oregon,  and  Wisconsin  are 
mentioned  by  Scribner  as  not  requiring  such  separate  examina- 
tion and  acknowledgment ;  *  but  in  some  of  these  States  dower 
has  been  abolished,  (for  instance,  Indiana,  Iowa,  and  Kansas,) 
and  in  many  of  the  other  States  mentioned  as  retaining  the  com- 
mon law  rule,  acknowledgment  by  the  wife  is  not  required  to  be 
separate  from  the  husband. 

The  magistrate  or  officer  taking  the  wife's  renunciation  of 
dower  must  be  disinterested;^  but  the  fact  that  he  is  related  to 
Statutory  re-  the  parties  does  not  render  him  incompetent.^  The 
imiit  be"'^  relinquishment  must  be  taken  by  and  acknowledged 
observed.  before   an  officer  authorized  thereto  by  the  statute, 

and  within  the  territory  of  his  jurisdiction ; "'  the  wife  must  be  ac- 
quainted with  the  contents  of  the  deed,^  and  the  officer's  certif- 
icate must  affirmatively  show  that  all  the  requirements  of  the 
statute  have  been  complied  with.^     Tlie  decisions  on  this  point 

1  Hence,    where    a    married    woman  ^  Withers  v.  Baird,  7  Watts,  227,  228  ; 
joined  the  guardian  of  her  insane  bus-  Scanlan  v.  Turner,  1  Bai.  L.  421,  424. 
band   in   a   deed,   she   relinquishing   her  ^  Lynch    v.    Livingston,  6  N.  Y.  422, 
dower,  and  her  husband  and  the  guardian  433. 

conveying  the   husband's  real  estate,  is  "^  Share  v.  Andersen, 7  Serg.  &  R.  43, 

not  estopped  from  claiming  her  dower,  63. 

either  at  law  or  in  equity  :  Rannells  v.  ^  Raverty  v.  Fridge,  3  McLean,  230. 

Gerner,  80  Mo.  474,  478,  reversing  s.  c.  ^  Corporation  t".  Hammond,   1    Harr. 

9  Mo.  App.  506.  &  J.  580,  588 ;  Jourdan  v.  Jourdan,  9  S.  & 

2  St.  18  Edw.  I.  c.  4.  R.  268 ;  Howell  v.  Ashmore,  22  N.  J.  L. 

3  By  St.  3  &  4  Wm.  IV.  c.  74.  261,  264  ;    Churchill  v.  Monroe,  1  R.  1. 

4  2  Scrib.  on  Dower,  322,  §  2,  and  au-  209 ;  Hairston  v.  Randolphs,  12  Leigh, 
thorities.  445. 


§115 


DOWER   CONSUMMATE  BEFORE   ASSIGNMENT. 


253 


arc  very  numerous,  and  depend  upon  the  local  statutes.  In  all 
of  tlicm,  however,  a  compliance  with  the  statute,  at  least  substan- 
tially, is  required  to  be  set  forth  in  the  certificate  of  the  officer. 
The  sufficiency  of  the  acknowledgment  is  to  be  determined  solely 
by  what  appears  upon  the  face  of  the  certificate,  and  cannot  be 
aided  by  aliunde  evidence.^  But  the  certificate  is  not  conclusive 
upon  the  wife  ;  she  may  contest  its  validity,  and  the  force  and 
effect  of  the  formal  proof.^ 

The  wife  cannot  release  her  inchoate  dower  to  any  person  but 
the  one  who  is  entitled  to  the  lands  to  which  it  attaches  ;^  nor, 
at  common  law,  to  her  husband,^  although  it  is  now  cannot  release 
recognized  in  equity  that  a  valid  agreement  may  be  I"or*to  hTr^^'"' 
made   between  husband  and  wife  for  separation  and  iius^^an'^- 
the  wife's  support,^  according  to  which  she  may  relinquish  her 
inchoate  dower.*' 

§  115.  Dower  Consummate  before  Assignment. — The  dissolution 
of  the  marriage  by  the  death  of  the  husband,  and  in  some  instances 
his  conviction  of  bigamy,'^  sentence  to  imprisonment  for  consummation 
life,^  divorce  a  vinculo,^  or  judicial  sale,^*^  operates  to  of^i^w'^'". 


^  2  Scrib.  on  Dower,  3G4,  §  45,  and 
authorities 

2  Per  Walker,  J.,  in  Eyster  v.  Hathe- 
way,  50  111.  b'Zl,  524  ;  Marsli  v.  Mitchell, 
2G  'n.  J.  Eq.  497,  499 ;  Johnson  v.  Van 
Velsor,  43  Mich.  208,  219. 

3  Reifl  V.  Horst,  55  Md.  42,  47  ;  Ches- 
nut  V.  Chesnut,  15  111.  App.  442,  446  ;  Chi- 
cago Dock  Co.  V.  Kinzie,  49  111.  289,  293  ; 
Pixley  I'.  Bennett,  11  Mass.  '298;  Har- 
riman  v.  Gray,  49  Me.  5o7  ;  Witthans  v. 
Schack,  105  N.  Y.  332,  337  ;  Dunlap  v. 
Thomas,  69  Iowa,  358,  301. 

*  On  the  ground  of  her  disability  and 
the  presumption  that  she  is  sub  protestati 
viri :  McGill,  Ch.,  in  Ireland  v.  Ireland, 
12  Atl.  R.  (N.  J.)  184,  185;  In  re  Rausch, 
35  xMinn.  291. 

&  Carson  v.  Murray,  3  Pai.  483,  501. 

6  Ireland  v.  Ireland,  supra ;  Jones  v. 
Fleming,  101  N.  Y.  418,  427.  See  as  to 
effect  of  agreement,  ante,  §  112. 

7  Hinck.  Test.  L.,  §  1952. 

8  Scribner  deduces  this  from  the  lan- 
guage of  the  statute  of  Michigan  (Comp. 
L.  1857,  p.  954,  §  5)  :  "  When  either  party 
shall  be  sentenced  to  imprisonment  for 
life,  .  .  .  the  marriage  shall  be  thereby 


absolutely  dissolved  without  any  decree 
of  dix'orce  or  other  legal  process."  In 
Howell's  Aim.  St.,  §  0240,  (1882,)  the  fol- 
lowing language  is  used  :  "  When  the 
husband  shall  be  sentenced  to  imprison- 
ment for  life,  .  .  .  the  wife  shall  be  en- 
titled to  the  immediate  possession  of  all 
lier  real  estate,  in  like  manner  as  if  he 
were  dead,"  —  which  would  justify  the 
conclusion  a  fortiori. 

^  See  ante,  §  109.  In  the  following 
States  the  widow  is  entitled  to  dower  on 
divorce  for  the  adultery,  sentence  to  im- 
prisonment, or  other  misconduct  of  the 
husband,  as  if  such  husbaml  were  dead: 
Indiana,  Maine,  Massachusetts,  Michigan, 
Minnesota,  Nevada,  Oregon,  and  Ver- 
mont. In  some  of  the  States  the  right  of 
dower  is  referred  to  the  court  trying  the 
action  ;  in  others  the  wife  is  entitled  on 
decree  of  divorce  to  all  her  lands,  tene- 
ments, and  hereditaments.  See  note  to 
1  Washb.    R.  Prop.  *258. 

10  Lawson  v.  DeRolt,  78  Ind.  563,  565. 
By  the  statutes  of  Indiana  (Rev.  St.  1881, 
§  2')08)  the  wife's  inchoate  right  to  the 
real  estate  of  her  husband  becomes  abso- 
lute upon  a  judicial  sale  thereof,  vesting 


254  ESTATES   OF   DOWER   AND   CURTESY.  §  115 

consummate  and  perfect  the  incipient  or  inchoate  right  of  dower, 
converting  it  into  a  vested  estate  whicli  the  widow  may  enter  u])on 
Governed  by  ^^^  enjov.  This  right  is  obviously  governed  by  the 
lex  loci  ret        jg^y  of  the  State  in  which  the  property  is  situated,^ 

and  cannot  be  affected  by  any  legislation  subsequent 
subsequen^t  ^  to  such  cousummation,  whether  there  has  been  an 
legislation.  assignment  or  not.^  But  she  has  no  seisin  in  law,  nor 
right  of  entry  or  ownership  over  the  lands  to  which  her  right 
attaches,  until  the  ministerial  act  of  assigning  to  her  in  severalty 
the  proportion  to  which  she  may  be  entitled ;  hence  she  is  said  to 

have  no  freehold  interest  in  the  lands  of  her  husband 

No  freehold  o         -,  •   i  i  ^p 

before  assign-    before  assignment  of  dower,*^  and  can  neillier  herseli 
maintain  or  defend  ejectment  against  the  heirs,  nor 
join  the  heirs  in  an  action  of  ejectment  against  others,'*  unless 
such  action  be  authorized  by  statute.^    It  follows  that  until  assign- 
ment the  dower  right  of  a  widow  cannot  be  levied  on, 

Not  subject  to  .   ,      ,  t  i'  t  j  •  •      i    i 

garnishment  or  garnished,  or  sold  under  execution  against  her  or  a 
beSassign-  subsequent  husband;^  and  that  she  has  no  interest 
'"''"^'  therein  which  is  capable  of  assignment  to  another,' 

unless  the  statute  confers  upon  it  the  character  of  a  freehold 
estate.^  But  she  may  relinquish,  as  in  case  of  inchoate  dower, 
But  equity  will  bcforc  the  husbaud's  death,  to  the  terre-tenant  hold- 
subject  it  to        •       ^j  g  jgo;al  title.^     And  equity  will  subject  the  unas- 

satii^faction  of  »   ^    ^       b  i       .  •< 

her  debts.         signed  dowcr  right  to  the  satisfaction  of  the  claims  of 

the  biisband's  title  in  the  purchaser.     A  Michigan    that   her   statutory    right    of 

voluntary  assignment  for  the  benefit  of  action     before     assignment     cannot     be 

orerlitors   has   not   such   effect :    Hall  v.  extended  to  her  grantee  :    Galbraith  v. 

Harrcll,   92  Ind.  408  ;  the  title  vests  in  Fleming,  60  Mich.  408. 
the  wife  on  the  execution  of  the  sheriff's  <>  Payne  v.  Hecker,  22   Hun,  28,  31 ; 

deed  to  the  purchaser :  Shelton  r.  Shelton,  Rausch  v.  Moore,  48  Iowa,  611,  614;   2 

94  Ind.  113.  Scrib.  on  Dower,  39,  §  26,  and  authorities  ; 

1  Apperson?-.Roltnn.  20  Ark.  418,426;  Aikman  r.  Harsell,  98  N.  Y.  186,  191; 
Mitchell  V.  Word,  60  Gii.  525,  531.  Moore  v.  Harris,  91  Mo.  616,  622. 

2  Avfp,  ^1\2.  ''  Jacks   v.   Dyer,   31    Ark    334,   337; 

3  Croade  v.  Ingraham,  13  Pick.  33;  La  Framboise  ;-'.  Grow,  56  111.  197  ;  Jack- 
Hilleary  v.  Hilleary,  26  Md.  274,  289;  son  r.  Vanderheyden,  17  John.  167,169; 
Reynolds  ?'.  Mc("urry,  100  111.  356,360;  Blain  i'.  Harrison,  11  III.  384  :  Turnipseed 
Rayner  v.  Lee,  20  Mich.  .384.     Not  even  v.  Fitzpatrick,  75  Ala.  297,  303. 

her  quarantine  :  Bleecker  v.  Hennion,  23  ^  As    in     Connecticut  :  ■   Greathead's 

N.  J.  Eq.  123.     But  see  post,  §  116,  as  to  Appeal,  42  Conn.  374,  375  ;   Wooster  v. 

her  quarantine.  Hunts  Company,  38  Conn.  256,  257  ;  Ver- 

*  Pringle  i:.  Gaw,  5  S.  &  R.  536  ;  Coles  mont :   Gorham  v.   Daniels,   23    Vt.  600, 

I'.  Coles,  15  John.  819,  322.  611;   Dummerston   v.   Newfane,   37    Vt. 

5  Yates  V.  Paddock,  10  Wend.  528, 531 ;  9,  13. 

Den  V.  Dodd,  6  N.  J.  L.  .367;  Ackerman  ^  Reed  v.  Ash,  30  Ark.  775.  779;  Car- 

V.  Shelp,  8  N.  J.  L.  125,  120.    It  is  held  in  nail  v.  Wilson,  21  Ark.  62,  65;  Pope  v. 


§  116  QUARANTINE   OF   DOWER.  255 

her  creditors  ;  ^  and  they  may  enforce  the  assignment  of  her  dower 
in  order  to  subject  it  to  their  chiims.^  So  the  assignment  of 
the  widow's  dower  right,  before  allotment,  though  inoperative 
at  law,  is  effectual  in  a  court  of  equity,  and  will  in  a  proper  case 
be  enforced  and  the  transferee  protected.^ 

§  116.  Quarantine  of  Dower,  —  Under  the  provisions  of  Magna 
Charta,  a  widow  "  shall  tarry  in  the  chief  house  of  her  husband 
bv  forty  days  after  the  death  of  her  husband,  within  ^ 

•'         •'  ^  (Quarantine 

which  days  her  dower  shall  be  assigned  her.    .    .    .  under  Magna 

'  Charta. 

And  slie  shall  have  in  the  mean  time  her  reasona- 
ble estovers  of  the  common."  *  Lord  Coke  interprets  this  lan- 
guage to  mean  that  dower  shall  I)e  speedily  assigned,  "to  the  end 
the  widow  might  not  be  without  livelihood"  ;^  and  that  estovers 
signifies  "sustenance,  or  aliment,  or  nourishment;  .  .  .  that  is, 
tilings  that  concern  the  nourishment  or  maintenance  of  man  in 
victu  et  vestitu,  wherein  is  contained  meat,  drink,  garments,  and 
habitation."  ^  Lord  Coke  says  that  it  was  certainly  the  law  of 
England  before  the  conquest,  that  the  woman  should  continue  a 
whole  year  in  her  husband's  house.''' 

In  the  United  States  the  provisions  for  the  widow  in  this  respect 
are,  as  a  general  thing,  more  liberal  in  her  favor  than  those  of  the 
common  law.     No  change  from  the   common  law  is  Quarantine  in 

tllC  SGVtircll 

made  in  Delaware,^  Maryland,^  Massachusetts,^^  Min-  states. 

Mead,  99  N.   Y.  201 ;  Morse,  J.,  in  Gal-  dower  is  sought  is  all  of  which  the  hus- 

braith  v.  Fleming,  60  Mich.  408,  413.  band  was  seised,  or  where  all  the  persons 

1  Davison  v.  Whittelsey,  1  McArth,  interested  are  not  before  the  court : 
163;  Tompkhis  v.  Fonda,  4  Pal.  448;  Getchell  c.  McGuire,  70  Iowa,  71. 
Potter  V.  P^verett,  7  Ired.  Eq.  152,  155;  ^  Heeves  v.  Brooks,  80  Ala.  26;  Robie 
Wilson  V.  McLenaghau,  1  McMullen,  Eq.  r.  Flanders,  33  N.  H.  524 ;  Lamar  i'.  Scott, 
35,  39 :  Maccubbin  v.  Cromwell,  2  Harr.  4  Rich.  L.  516  ;  Bostwick  v.  Beach,  103 
&  G.  443,  455 ;  Strong  v.  Clem,  12  Ind.  N.  Y.  414,  422. 

37  ;   McKenzie*  v.  Donald,  61  Miss.  452;  4  Great  Ch.,  9  Hen.  III.  c.  7. 

Boltz  i:  Stolz.  41  Oh.  St.  540;  Payne  v.  s  Co.  2  Inst.  ch.  7,  Magna  Charta,  (2). 

Becker,  87  N   Y.  153.  "  The  reason   why  sucli  speed  is  made, 

Rut  see,  to  tlie  contrary,  Saltniarsh  v.  is  for  that  lier  quarentine  is  but  for  forty 

Smith,  32  .Ma.  404,  408;  Blain  v.  Ilarri-  days.  ...  If   she  marry  she   loseth  her 

son.  11  111.  384;  Maxon  v.  Gray,  14  R  I.  quarentine"  :  lb.  (1). 
641.  6  lb.,  ch.  7,  (6). 

2  So  under  a  Statute  in  Missouri:  Rev.  "^  Co.  Litt.  32  b,  citing  Lamb.  §  120, 
St.  1879,  §  2218;  Waller  v.  Mardus,  29  71,  and  "  diverse  ancient  manuscripts." 
Mo.  25  ;  and  in  Connecticut :  Grcathead's          ^  Laws,  1874,  p.  515,  §  1,  par.  6  ;  p.  533, 
Appeal,  42   Conn.  374  ;  in  Iowa  this  is  §  1. 

left  an  open  question,  but  equity  will  in  ^  No  provision  is  found  in  the  statutes 

no  case  do  so,  wliore  the  petition  fails  to     as  to  quarantine. 

show  that  the  real  estate  out  of  which  the         ^'^  Pub.  St.  1882,  p.  740,  §  3. 


256 


ESTATES   OF   DOWER   AND   CURTESY. 


§116 


nesota,-  Now  Hampsliire,^  New  York,^  North  Carolina,*  and 
Tennf^ssee.^  In  Maine  the  period  during  which  the  widow  may 
remain  in  the  mansion  of  the  deceased  luisband  is  extended  to 
ninety  days  ;  '^  in  Ai'kansas,  to  two  months,  and  until  dower  is 
assigned;'  in  Ohio,^  Oregon,^  and  Rhode  Island,^*^  to  one  year; 
and  in  Alabama,^^  Florida,^^  Georgia,^^  Kentucky,^*  Missouri,i^ 
Nebraskaji*^  New  Jersey,^''  Vermont,^^  Virginia,^^  West  Virginiaj^*^ 
and  Wisconsin,2i  no  limit  to  her  right  of  possession  exists  until 
dower  be  assigned.  These  provisions  are  generally  additi(-nal  to 
those  made  for  the  immediate  support  of  the  family  ;  and  in  those 
States  in  which  dower  is  abolished  by  statute,  the  homestead  laws, 
the  year's  support  allotted  to  widow  and  family,  and  the  laws  reg- 
ulating the  descent  of  real  estate,  afford  an  ample  equivalent  for 
the  quarantine  at  common  law. 

Until  dower  be  assigned  the  right  of  the  widow  is  held  to  extend 
not  only  to  the  possession,  or  occupation  free  of  rent,  of  the 
Quarantine  mausiou  or  dwclling-liouse,  together  with  all  the  ap- 
s/o'^n"appurtr-'  purtcuaut  buildings,  and  the  messuage  or  plantation 
nant  buildings,  connected  therewith,22  but  that  it  constitutes  a  freehold 

plantation,  ' 

"^c.  for  life,  unless  sooner  defeated  by  the  act  of  the  heir,^^ 


1  Dower  is  not  defined  by  the  statutes, 
but  it  is  provided  in  the  Statute  of  De- 
scents that  estates  of  dower  and  cur- 
tesy are  not  thereby  abrogated  :  St.  1878, 
p.  565,  §  3. 

2  Gen.  L.  1878,  p.  475,  §  12. 

3  3  Banks  &  Bro.,  1882,  p  2199,  §  17, 
giving  also  reasorable  sustenance. 

*  Code,  1883,  §  2102  et  seq. 

5  Th.  &  St.  St.  §  2398 ;  Code,  1884, 
§  3244. 

6  Rev.  St.  1871,  p.  758,  §  14.  This  pro- 
vision seems  to  be  omitted  in  Rev.  St.  1883. 

■^  And  shall  have  sustenance  out  of 
the  estate  :  Dig.  1884,  §§  2587,  2588. 

8  Rev.  St.  1880,  §  4188. 

9  Code,  1887,  §  ^976,  also  giving  sus- 
tenance for  one  year. 

10  Pub.  St.  1882.  p.  637,  §  1. 

11  Code,  1886,  §  1900. 

12  McClell.  Dig.  p.  477,  §  9,  also  giving 
one  year's  provisions,  to  be  set  apart  by 
commissioners  appointed  by  the  court. 

13  Code,  1882,  §  1768,  together  with 
the  furniture. 

1*  Gen.  St.  1887,  p.  740,  §  8. 


15  Rev.  St.  1879,  §  2205.  See  Holmes 
V.  Kring,  93  Mo.  452,  4.58,  discussing  this 
question  and  citing  Missouri  cases. 

i«  Conip.  St.  1887,  ch   23,  §  11. 

"  Rev.  1877,  p.  320. 

18  Rev.  L.  1880,  §  2224. 

19  Code,  1887,  §  2274. 

20  Kelley's  Hev.  St.  ch.  70,  §  8. 

21  Rev.  St.  1878,  §  3872. 

2-^  White  L-.  Clarke,  7  T.  B.  Mon.  640, 
642 ;  Inge  v.  Murphy,  14  Ala.  289,  291  ; 
Rambo  v.  Bell,  3  Ga.  207,  209;  Driskell  v. 
Hanks,  18  B.  Mon.  855,  864. 

23  Ackerman  v.  Slielp,  8  N.  J.  L.  125, 
129  ;  Inge  v.  Murphy,  14  Ala.  289,  292 ; 
Burks  V.  Osborn,  9  B.  Mon.  579,  580 
(only  as  a  means  of  coercing  the  heirs  to 
a  speedy  assignment)  ;  Bleecker  v.  Hen- 
nion,  to  similar  effect,  23  N.  J.  Eq.  123, 
124.  Ejectment  will  lie  for  her  quaran- 
tine before  assignment  of  dower  :  Miller 
V.  Talley,  48  Mo.  503,  504.  The  estate  of 
the  widow,  in  this  element  of  her  dower, 
is  rather  analogous  to  a  tenancy  at  will  • 
Simmons  v.  Lyle,  32  Gratt.  752,  757;  Spin- 
ning V.  Spinning,  43  N.  J  Eq.  215,  246. 


§  116  QUARANTINE   OF   DOWER.  257 

which  she  ma}'  occupy  by  a  tenant  as  well  as  by  her-  „,  , 

.  ~  Widow  may 

self;  the  occupation  of  the  tenant  is  hers,i  and  she  is  n-m  it  to  a 
entitled  to  the  rent  paid  by  the  tenants.^     Whether 
she  can  assign   her   right   to   remain    in   the   mansion-house  to 
another  has  been  differently  held,  the  right  being  affirmed  in  Mis- 
souri,-^ and  denied  in  Alabama.*     The  right  of  quarantine,  how- 
ever, is  confmed  exclusively  to  property  of  which  she  confined  to 
is  dowable,  differing  in  this  respect  from  the  right  of  ^hi^"^-),e'is 
homestead  ;  she  may  have  the  right  of  homestead,^  dowable, 
but  cannot  have  quarantine  of  dower,  in  leaseholds;^  nor  does 
quarantine  attach  to  property  on  which  the  husband  on  which  hus- 
did  not  reside  at  the  time  of  his  death,"  although  it  ^'''"''  'es^ided. 
be  the  only  real  estate  owned  by  hiin.^     Nor  can  the  widow  of  a 
deceased  tenant  in  common  exclude  the  cotenant  in  common  un 
der  the  right  of  quarantine.^     So  it  is  held  in  Missouri,  that,  if  a 
widow  elects  to  take  a  child's  share  in  lieu  of  dower.  Election  to 
she  renounces  dower  with  all  its  incidents,  including  Ihare'^defL^ts 
quarantine.^**     And  it  is  obvious  that  the  widow  can-  quarantine, 
not,  under  the  law  giving  her  quarantine,  defend  her  Quarantine  de- 

'  o  o  n  7  feated  by  para- 

posscssion  against  an  adverse  or  a  paramount  title ;  mount  title. 
in  this  respect  she  is  in  no  better  condition  than  her  husband 
would  have  been.^^ 

It  has  been  held,  in  several  instances,  that  the  widow  is  entitled 

1  Craige  v.  Morris,  25  N.  J.  Eq.  467,  (but  in  this  case  homestead  is  also  denied 

4G8;  Doe  v.  Bernard,  7  Sm.  &  M.  .319,  in  a  leasehold   estate,  see  judcrment  on 

324  ;    Hyzer   v.  Stoker,  3  B.  Mon.  117  ;  rehearing,  p.  40)  ;  Voeickner  v.   Hudson, 

Trask   v.   Baxter,  48  111.  406;  Stokes  v.  1  Sandf.  215,  218. 
McAllister,  2  Mo.  163,166.  1  Smith  v.   Smith,   13  Ala.  329,  ,3.33; 

•^  Chaplin  v.  Simmons,  7  T.  B.  Mon.  Waters  r.  Williams,  S8  Ala.  680,  684 ;  Mc- 

3.37,  388;  McLaughlin  v.  McLaughlin,  22  Clurg  v.  Turner,  74  Mo  45;  in  Indiana 

N.  J.  Eq.  505,  510 ;  s.  c.  20  N.  J.  Eq.  190 ;  the  term  "messuage  "  is  held  to  include  a 

Iteeves  v.  Brooks,  80  Ala.  26,  30.     The  few  acres  of  land,  but  not  the  whole  farm 

widow's  right  is  not  limited  to  the  rent  Grimes  y.  Wilson,  4  Blackf  331,  3.33. 
paid  for  the  mansion-house  or  messuages,  »  Clary  v.  Sanders,  43  Ala.  287,  295. 

but  extends  to  the  income  from  all  prop-  9  Collins  i'.  W.irren,  29  Mo.  2.36,  238. 

erty  assigned  to  her  as  dower,  from  tlie         w  Wigley  v.  Beaiiclmmp,  51  Mo.  544, 

death  of   the   husband,   which  she  may  546,  commenting  on  and  affirming  Matney 

recover     after    assignment  :     Austell    v.  v.  Graham.  50  Mo.  559.  and  overruling 

Swann,  74  Ga.  278.  Orrick  r.  Robbins,  34  Mo.  226.      It  has 

3  Jones   V.    Manly,   58  Mo    559,  564;  already  been  noticed,  that  in  Missouri  an 

Stokes  V.  McAllister,  2  Mo   163,  166.  election  to  take  a  child's  part  operates  as 

*  Barber  v.  Williams,  74  Ala.  331,  3-33;  a  confirmation  of  a  conveyance  in  fraud 

Wallace  v.  Hall,  19  Ala.  367,  372.  of  dower  :  ante,  §  11-3. 

6  Ante,  §  9.5.  n  Taylor  v.  McCrackin,  2  Blackf.  200, 

6  Pizzala  V.  Campbell,  46  Ala.  35,  38  262. 

VOL.  I.  — 17 


258  ESTATES    OF    DOWER    AND    CURTESY.  §  117 

to  her  quarantine  free  of  taxes,  which  must  be  charged  to  the 
o-cncral  estate  -J  but  not  the  estate  assigned  for  dower, 

Quarantine  not    ^ 

subject  to         the  taxes  upon  which  constitute  a  charge  upon  the 

' »  property  enjoyed  by  her.^ 

§  117.    Assignment  of  Dower.  —  The  method  of  assigning  dower 

to  the  widow  is  prescribed  by  statute  in  a  number  of  States ;  at 

T^  ,     common  law,  and  in  the  absence  of  a  statutory  pro- 

Dower  may  be  '  "^   ^ 

assifcned  by       vision  to  the  Contrary,  it  is  not  necessary  to  resort  to 

parties  with-  „  ,  . 

out  legal  pro-     legal  proceedings  for  this  purpose ;  the  parties  may 
"'"  bind  themselves  as  effectually  in  the  matter  of  assign- 

ing dower,  as  in  any  other  transaction.^  It  may  be  done  by  parol ; 
nothing  is  required  but  to  ascertain  and  assign  her  share  to  the 
widow,  and  then,  if  she  has  entered,  the  freehold  vests  in  her.* 
But  if  any  particular  course  of  proceedings  is  indicated,  this  must 
of  course  be  observed.  Thus,  in  Arkansas,^  Connecticut,^  Ohio," 
and  Rhode  Island,^  the  assignment  must  be  in  writing.  In 
Nebraska,  it  is  held  that  the  widow  cannot  institute  a  partition 
suit  for  her  dower.^ 

Assignment  of  dower  is  distinguished  as  being  either  according 
to  or  agamst  common  right;  the  former  being  the  setting  apart 
Dower  accord-  of  the  sharc  of  lands  to  which  the  widow  is  entitled 
a-ain"st°com-  ffom  the  lauds  Constituting  the  late  husband's  real 
inou  right.        estate  by  metes  and  bounds,  when  practicablej^*^  to  be 

1  Branson  v.  Yancy,  1  Dev.  Eq.  77,  81  Gragg,  23  Pick.  88,  92  ;  Boyers  v.  New- 
( Henderson,  J.,  dissenting,  but  not  on  tlie  banks,  2  Ind.  388,  390;  Meserve  v.  Me- 
ground  tliat  the  quarantine  was  charge-  ser-ve,  19  N.  H.  240,  243.  Parol  proof  of 
able  with  taxes  :  p.  84);  Graves  v.  Coch-  loss  of  papers  and  of  their  contents,  and 
rane,  68  Mo.  74,  77 ;  Simmons  v.  Lyle,  32  of  possession  V)y  the  widow  for  a  long 
Gratt.  752  ;  Felch  v.  Finch,  52  Iowa,  563,  time  of  the  land,  prove  title  of  dowress  : 
567 ;  Spinning  v.  Spinning,  43  N.  J.  Eq.  Youndt  v.  Miller,  91  N.  C.  331,  334. 

215,  245.  6  Dig.  1884,  §  2604. 

2  Austell  V.  Swann,  74  Ga.  278,  281.  «  2  Scrib.  on  Dower,  74,  §  5. 

3  Austin   V.    Austin,   50   Me.   74,   77 ;  ^  Rev.  St.  1880,  §  5707. 
Gibbs  V.  Esty,  22  Hun,  266,  269;  Lenfers  «  Pub.  St.  1882,  p.  637,  §  4. 

V.  Henke,  73  111.  405,  41 1 ;  Clark  v.  Muzzy,  ^  Hurste  v.  Hotaling,  20  Neb.  178, 182, 

43  N.  H.  59  ;  Mitchell  n.  Miller,  6  Dana,  citing  Coles  v.  Coles,  15  Jolin.  319. 

79,  83   (allotment  of  slaves) ;   Moore  v.  lo  ^  court  of  chancery  has  no  power 

Waller,  2  Rand.  418,  421 ;  McLaughlin  v.  to  order  the  sale  of  real  estate  in  which 

McLaughlin,  20  N.  J.  Eq.  190;  Campbell  the  widow  has  dower,  and  decree  that  she 

V.  Moore,  15  111.  App.  129,  1.33;  Peters  v.  receive  money  in  lieu  of  dower,  unless  it 

West,  70  Ga.  343,  348;  Conant  v.  Little,  be  first  ascertained  that  it  is  impracticable 

1  Pick.  189.     But  a  consent  decree  will  to  set  out  dower  by  metes  and  bounds : 

not  bind  mortgagees  who  are  not  parties  :  Wilson  v.  Branch,  77  Va.  05,  69 ;  see  Her- 

Lehman  v.  Rogers,  81  Ala.  363.  bert  v.  Wren,  7  Cr.  370,  380,  holding  tiiat 

■*  Joims   V.   Fenton,    88    Mo.   64,   68;  part  of  purchase  money  cannot  be  allotted 

Austin    V.   Austin,    supra;    Shattuck   v.  in  lieu  of  dower,  unless  all  parties  consent. 


ASSIGNMENT   OF   DOWER. 


259 


held  by  her  during  her  life ;  the  latter  implies  a  special  assent  or 
agreement  on  the  part  of  the  widow  to  accept  it,  instead  of  the 
more  precise  and  formal  manner. 

Without  discussing  the  various  remedies  given  at  law  and  in 
equity,  and  the  procedure  pointed  out,  both  at  common  law  and 
under  the  statutes  of  the  several  States,  it  is  deemed   .    . 

Assignment 

suOicient  here  to  indicate  some  of  the  salient  prin-  i>y  smumary 

•    1  •  Ai  •  J.       r     1  I  proceeding. 

ciples  governmg   the  assignment  of  dower  by  sum- 
mary proceeding  in  the  courts  controlling  the  administration  of 
the  estates  of  deceased  persons,  as  "  this  convenient  method  of 
proceeding  has,  in  a  great  degree,  superseded  the  common  law 
remedy  by  action."  ^ 

Jurisdiction  to  assign  dower  is  vested  in  courts  having  jurisdic- 
tion of  probate  matters  in  Alabama,^  Arkansas,^  Connecticut,*  Del- 
aware,^ Florida,^  Illinois,"  lowa,^  Kentucky ,9  Maine,^''  ^ 

.  TO  -sr-  io  -ir  States  in  which 

Massachusetts,"  JMichigan,^'^  Minnesota,^^  Mississippi,^*  probate  conns 
Nebraska,i5New Hampshire,i6New  Jersey ,i'  Newyork,i8  '''''""  ''"'""'• 


1  2  Scrih.  on  Dower,  175,  §  1,  referring 
to  4  Kent,  72  ;  1  Waslib.  R.  Prop., 
p.  *L'26  ;  1  Hilliard,  R.  Prop.,  2d  ed., 
p.  172,  §  52. 

^  Humes  v.  Scruggs,  64  Ala.  40,  44; 
Martin  v.  Martin,  22  Ala.  86,  holding  that 
its  jurisdiction  is  in  derogation  of  com- 
mon law,  and  proceedings  must  therefore 
strictly  conform  to  the  statute  ;  Turnip- 
seed  r.  Fitzpatrick,  75  Ala.  297,  302,  hold- 
ing assignment  void  if  none  of  the  lands 
are  situate  in  the  county  where  order  is 
made  ;  Hause  v.  Hause,  57  Ala.  262, 
showing  concurrent  jurisdiction  with 
courts  of  equity.  See  as  to  the  effect  of 
a  decree  by  consent,  Lehman  v.  Rogers, 
81  Ala.  m:]. 

3  Hill  ('.  Mitchell,  5  Ark.  608,  619; 
but  chancery  is  not  ousted  :  Jones  v. 
Jones,  28  Ark.  19,  20  ;  probate  and  chan- 
cery courts  have  concurrent  jurisdiction  : 
E.\  parte  Hilliard,  6  S.  W.  R.  326. 

^  Way  )'.  Way,  42  Conn  52,  53  ;  upon 
the  application  of  a  creditor  having  lev- 
ied :  Greathead's  Appeal,  42  Conn.  374. 

s  Lay  ton  v.  Butler.  4  Harr.  507,  508; 
Farrow  v.  Farrow,  1  Del.  Ch.  457  ;  Elia- 
son  r.  Eliason,  3  Del.  Ch.  260,  2G5. 

«  McClell.  Dig.  1881,  p.  476,  §  7.  See 
Milton  V.  Milton,  14  Fla.  369. 

^  Starr  &  Curt.  An.  St.  p.  911,  §  44 


(in   proceedings   to  sell   real    estate    by 
order  of  the  probate  court.) 

^  Shawhan  v.  Loffer,  24  Iowa,  217, 
224  ;  Olmsted  v.  Blair,  45  Iowa,  42. 

9  Shields  v.  Batts,  5  J.  J.  iVlarsh.  12, 
15;  Rintcli  v.  Cunningham,  4  Bibb,  462; 
but  not  of  lands  alienated  by  the  hus- 
band, p.  4tJ3. 

IS  Williams  v.  Williams,  78  Me.  82.  84. 
But  not  of  lands  alienated  by  the  hus- 
band :  French  v.  Crosby,  23  Me.  276, 
278;  Austin  v.  Austin,  50  Me.  74. 

11  Not  of  premises  mortgaged  :  Sheafe 
V.  Spring,  9  Mass.  9,  12;  the  assignment 
dates  from  the  approval  by  the  probate 
court  of  the  commissioner's  report  : 
Kearns  v.  Cunniff,  138  Mass.  434. 

1-  The  record  must  show  the  existence 
of  all  jurisdictional  facts  :  King  v.  Mer- 
ritt,  34  N.  W.  R.  689.  690. 

13  2  Scrib.  on  Dower,  188,  §  36. 

1*  Not  against  strangers  to  the  estate  : 
Jiggitts  V.  Jiirgitts,  40  Miss.  718,  726. 

15  Comp.  St.  1887,  ch.  23,  §  8. 

IS  Pinkham  v.  Gear,  3  N.  H.  163,  167  ; 
Biirnliam  r.  Porter,  24  N.  H.  570,  577. 

1'  Rev.  1877,  p.  .323,  §  17. 

18  Concurrent  with  Superior  Court  and 
County  Court :  C.  C.  Pr.  §§  263,  340 ;  but 
not  where  title  is  contested  :  Parks  v. 
Hardey,  4  Bradf  15,  10. 


260 


ESTATES    OF   DOWER    AND   CURTESY. 


States  in  which 
probate  courts 
have  no  jiiris- 
fi  let  ion  to  as- 
sign dower. 


North  Carolina,^  Oregon,^  Rhode  Island,^  South  Carolina,* 
Tennessee,^  Vermont,^  Virginia/  and  Wisconsin.^  In  West 
Virginia  the  word  "  circuit "  appears  in  connec- 
tion with  the  court  referred  to,  wliich  is  not  in  the 
Code  of  Virginia ;  county  and  circuit  courts  have  con- 
current jurisdiction  of  probate  matters  in  West  Vir- 
ginia, and  it  seems  that  jurisdiction  to  assign  dower  is  not  vested 
in  the  county  court.^  In  the  other  States  this  power  is  not  vested 
in  testamentary  courts  ;  in  Pennsylvania  it  has  been  so  decided. ^*^ 
The  proof  in  the  proceeding  to  obtain  the  assignment  of  dower 
must  show  marriage  with  the  person  in  whose  estate  dower  is 
claimed,^^  seisin  by  the  husband,^^  and  his  death,  or 

Proof  neces-  •'  i  •    i        i  i  •    ^  j.     • 

sary  in  assign-  other   circumstancc    by   which   the    dower    riglit    is 

ment  of  dower.  -,  ,„ 

consummated/"^ 

As  a  general  rule,  dower  is  assignable  according  to 
the  law  in  force  at  the  time  of  the  husband's  death  ;  i* 
but  as  to  her  right  in  property  aliened,  without  her 
joining  in  the  conveyance,  during  coverture,  she  is 
entitled  according  to  the  law  as  it  stood  at  the  date  of 


Assignment 
under  law  at 
time  of  death. 

Anjainst    alien- 
ees at  time  of 
alienation. 


1  Concurrent  with  the  Superior  Court : 
Campbell  v.  Murphy,  2  Jones  Eq.  357, 
359  ;  proceedings  should  be  in  the  county 
of  the  husband's  last  residence,  but  lands 
in  adjoining  county  may  be  assigned : 
Askew  V.  Bynum,  81  N.  C.  350.  See 
Efland  v.  Efland,  96  N.  C.  488. 

2  Code,  1887,  §  2961,  when  title  is  not 
disputed. 

3  But  can  entertain  no  equitable  de- 
fences :  Gardner  v.  Gardner,  10  R.  I.  211, 
213  ;  but  see  Eddy  v.  Moulton,  13  R.  I. 
105,  and  Smith  i-.  Smith,  12  R.  I.  456. 

4  Stewart  v.  Blease,  4  S.  C.  37,  40 ;  it 
may  set  aside  the  report  and  direct  as- 
signment de  novo  :  Irwin  v.  Brooks,  19 
S.  C.  96. 

5  Rhea  V.  Meredith,  6  Lea,  605,  607 ; 
but  chancery  has  concurrent  jurisdiction, 
when  proceeding  in  county  court  is  fraud- 
ulent, or  the  widow  claiming  dower  is 
also  administratrix  :  Spain  v.  Adams,  3 
Tenn.  Ch.  319,  322. 

6  Danforth  r.  Smith,  23  Vt.  247,  257. 

"  Code,  1887,  §  2275;  Devaughn  v. 
Devauffhn,  19  Gratt  556,  562. 

8  2  Scrib.  on  Dower,  188,  §  .36. 

9  1  Kelley's  Rev.  St.  p.  501,  §  9;  Code, 
1868,  p.  444. 


10  ShafEer  v.  Shaffer,  50  Pa.  St.  394, 
396. 

11  But  direct  proof  of  marriage  is  not 
indispensable ;  it  may  be  proved  by  rep- 
utation, declarations,  and  circumstances 
supporting  a  presumption,  Jones  v.  Jones, 
28  Ark.  19,  22  ;  Jackson  v.  State,  8  Tex. 
App.  60,  62  ;  Blackburn  v.  Crawfords,  3 
Wall.  175,  187  ;  Van  Tuyl  v.  Van  Tuyl, 
57  Barb.  235.  See  ante,  §  107  ;  2  Scrib. 
on  Dower,  205,  §§  2-14. 

1-  Strict  proof  is  not  required  :  posses- 
sion of  the  widow  under  direct  or  mesne 
conveyance  from  the  husband  ;  or  posses- 
sion by  the  husband  with  claim  of  title, 
or  receipt  of  rents  by  him  from  the  per- 
son in  possession,  is  sufficient  fmnui  facie 
proof:  Carnall  v.  Wilson,  21  Ark.  62,  67  ; 
Smith  V.  Lorillard,  10  John.  338,  355; 
McCuUers  v.  Haines,  39  Ga.  195 ;  Gentry 
V.  Woodson,  10  Mo.  224  ;  Morgan  v. 
Smith,  25  S.  C.  337.     See  avfp,  §  111. 

13  Proof  of  husband's  seisin  at  some 
time  when  the  applicant  for  dower  was 
his  wife,  and  his  subsequent  death,  makes 
a  prima  facie  case  in  her  favor  :  Reich  v. 
Berdel,  i20  111.  499,  501. 

14  Ante,  §  112. 


§  117  ASSIGNMENT   OF    DOWER.  261 

the   alienation.^     She  is  entitled   to  dower  in  the  value  of  the 
lands  at  the  time  of  the  assignment,  excluding  the  According  to 
increase  in  value  by  reason  of   improvements  made  value  at  time 

•'  p  1  !•  of  alienation. 

thereon  by  the  vendee  or  his  grantees  after  the  alien- 
ation by  the  husband,  but  not  excluding  the  increased  value  by 
natural  appreciation,  or  in  consequence  of  the  improvements  made 
by  the  owners  of  adjoining  lands.^     But  where  im-  But  if  deterio- 
provements  upon  the  land  at  the  time  of  the  aliena-  [ngto^vXe'at 
tion  are  subsequently  torn  down  or  deteriorate,  the  time  of  death, 
converse  of  the  rule  does  not  seem  to  hold  good;   she  is  not 
allowed  dower  in  the  value  of  the  property  at  the  time  of  the 
alienation,  but  in  its  value  at  the  time  of  the  husband's  death .^ 
But  the  widow  is  entitled  to  dower  in  the  value  of  the  premises  at 
the  time  of  the  assignment,  where  improvements  have  been  erected 
after  a  sale  by  the  administratrix  under  order  of  the  court,  for 
the  payment  of  her  deceased  husband's  debts,  and   before  the 
assignment  of  dower.* 

Where  the  nature  of  the  property  in  which  dower  is  to  be  as- 
signed precludes  its  setting  apart  by  metes  and  bounds,  as  where 
the  husband  was  seised  in  common,  or  in  coparcenary,  ^^^;g„,j^g„t  j^ 
the  widow  takes  her  dower  in  the  husband's  share  of  common  with 

.  T       ,^  cotenants. 

such  property  in  common  with  the   heir  and  other 
tenants;^  in  a  mill  she  may  be  endowed  either  of  the  in  a  mill. 

1  Mayburry  v.  Brien,  15  Pet   21,  .38  ;  case  the  widow  was  not  entitled  to  dower 

Thomas  v.  Hesse,  34  Mo.  13,  24;  John-  unaffected  by  the  law  of  1852? 
ston   V.  Vandyke,  6   McLean,  422,   427  ;  "  Boyd  v.  Carlton,  69  Me.  200,  203  ; 

Curtis  V.   Hobart,  41   Me.  230,  232.     In  Carter  v.  Parker,  28  Me.  509;  VVestcott 

Indiana,  the  statute  of  1852,  abolishing  v.  Campbell,  11    R.  I.  378,  380 ;  Price  v. 

dower  and  giving  the  widow  one  third  of  Hobbs,  47   Md.   3-59,  370  ;    Scammon   r. 

the  husband's  realty,   was  held   not   ap-  Campbell,  75  111.  223,  227  ;  Wood  v.  Mor- 

plicable  to  land  conveyed  by  the  husband  gan,  56  Ala.  397,  399  ;  I'eirce  v.  O'Brien, 

previously  :    Bowen  v.  Preston,  48   Ind.  29    Fed.   Rep.   402  ;    Felch  v.  Finch,  52 

367,    372,   citing    the   previous    Indiana  Iowa,  563. 

cases.     The    same    condition    exists    in  ^  "  Though    this   would   seem   to    be 
Iowa:  Moore  y.  Kent,  37  Iowa,  20  ;   Cra-  pushing   the  doctrine  to   a  questionable 
ven  (-'.  Winter,  .38  Iowa,  471,  481  ;  Peirce  extreme  "  :  per  Durfee,  C.  J.,  in  Westcott 
V.  O'Brien,  29  Fed.  Rep.  402,  citing  Iowa  i\  Campbell,  supm  :   JMcClanahan  v.  Por- 
cases.     The  consequence  of  this  doctrine  ter,  10  Mo.  746,  752;  Thompson  v.  Mor- 
was   iield,  in  Indiana,  to  operate  to  the  row,  5  S.  &  R.  289,  291 ;  per  Wood,  J., 
widow's  deprivation    of   dower  in  lands  in  Dunseth  v.  Bank  of  U.  S.,  6  Oh.  76. 
sold  by  the  husband  prior  to  the  enlarge-  *  Phinney  v.  Johnson,  15  S.  C.  158. 
ment  of  dower,  because  to  give  her  dower  ^  j^te,  §  111.    Scribner,  vol.  2,  p.  639, 
as  fixed  by  tlie  act  of  1852  would  be  to  §  1.  mentions  such  hereditaments  as  a  pis- 
change  the  incumbrance  subject  to  which  cary ,  offices,  a  fair,  a  mnrket.  a  dove-house, 
the    purchaser    bought  into  a  fee,   thus  conrts,  fines,  heriots,  &c.,  as  requiring  an 
in)p;iiring  a  vested  right :  Taylor  r.  Sam-  assignment  in  the  rents  and  profits, 
pie,  51  Ind.  423.     Qiuvre  whether  in  such 


262 


ESTATES    OF   DOWER   AND   CURTESY. 


§117 


third  toll-dish,  or  of  a  third  of  the  profits,  or  of  the  entire 
mill  for  every  third  month  ;i  in  a  ferry,  one  tliird 
of  the  profits,  or  tlie  use  of  the  ferry  for  a  third 
part  of  the  time,  should  be  set  apart  to  the  widow  ;2  and  so,  when- 
ever there  can  be  no  assignment  by  metes  and  bounds,  there  may 
In  rents  and  be  either  a  division  of  the  rents  and  ])rofits.  after  de- 
proceeds'of"  ductiug  expenses  for  reasonable  repairs  and  taxes,  but 
®'''®-  not  insurance,^  or  a  sale  and  division  of  the  proceeds  ;* 

or  a  sum  may  be  adjudged  to  her  in  gross  for  her  dower  in- 
terest.^ If  there  be  a  sale  of  the  whole  estate,  including  the 
dower  of  the  widow,  she  is  entitled  either  to  a  gross  sum,  equal 
to  an  amount  necessary  to  yield  an  annual  payment  to  her  of  the 
interest  on  one  third  of  the  net  proceeds  of  sale  for  the  remainder 
of  her  life,  which  may  be  determined  according  to  the 

KiiIg  to  ascGr- 

tain  value  of  annuity  tables,*"  generally  indicated  either  by  statute 
or  by  the  supreme  courts  of  the  several  States ; "  or  to 
the  payment  of  a  sum  equal  to  the  interest  on  her  share  annually 
until  her  death.^  In  the  latter  case  the  payments  should  not  be 
made  for  a  whole  year  at  a  time,  but  in  monthly  or  quarterly 
instalments.^ 

A  sale  of  the  lands  of  a  deceased  person  by  the  administrator 


1  Per  Marsliall,  J.,  in  Sniitli  v.  Smith, 
5  Dana,  179,  180;  but  see,  as  to  the  Illi- 
nois statute  on  this  suhjt^ct,  Walker  v. 
Walker,  2  III.  App.  418,  420. 

2  Stevens  v.  Stevens,  3  Dana,  .371,  373. 

3  Hiljgartner  v.  Gebhart,  25  Oh.  St. 
5.57 ;  Waisii  v.  Reis,  50  111.  477,  480.  In 
New  York,  where  the  court  has,  as  re- 
quired hy  statute,  fixed  a  sum  equal  to 
one  third  of  tlie  rental  value  of  the  prop- 
erty, and  specified  the  same  in  the  decree, 
the  court  has  no  power  to  alter  such  final 
judgment,  the  rents  having  depreciated  : 
Mclntyre  v.  Clark,  43  Hun,  .352. 

4  Lenfers  v.  Henke,  73  111.  405,  410. 

5  Rich  (.'.  Ricli,  7  Bush,  53,  5-5.  Where 
a  sum  is  assessed  in  lieu  of  dower,  but 
not  in  fact  paid,  the  widow  still  has  her 
claim  against  the  land  itself,  but  no 
specific  lien  thereon,  under  which  she 
can  sell  it,  in  the  hands  of  an  alienee  : 
Williamson  v.  Gasque,  24  S.  C.  100. 

c  A  number  of  such  are  given  by 
Scribner  in  an  appendix  to  vol.  2  of  his 
v/ork  on  Dower.  In  Alabama  it  is  held 
that  the  "  American  Table  of  Mortality  " 


should  be  resorted  to,  as  the  orthodox 
standard  throughout  the  United  States 
and  Canada,  and  that  chancellors  and 
registers  ought  to  take  judicial  knowl- 
edge of  both  the  existence  and  contents 
of  this  table  :  Gordon  v.  Tweedy,  74  Ala. 
2.32,  237. 

"  Graves  v.  Cochran,  68  Mo.  74,  76; 
Unger  v.  Leiter,  32  Oh.  St.  210,  214; 
Wood  V.  Morgan,  56  Ala.  397,  399  ;  Banks 
V.  Ranks,  2  Th.  &  C.  483,  484.  And  the 
health  of  the  widow  should  be  taken 
into  account :  McLaughlin  v.  McLaugh- 
lin, 20  N.  J.  Eq.  190,  195;  Swain  v.  Har- 
din, 64  Ind.  85;  Gordon  v.  Tweedy,  74 
Ala.  232,  237.  In  South  Carolina,  one 
sixth  of  the  proceeds  is  paid  to  the  widow 
in  lieu  of  her  dower,  without  reference 
to  the  age  of  the  widow :  Stewart  v. 
Pearson,  4  S  C.  4,  46,  citing  Wright  v. 
Jennings,  1  Bai.  277,  280;  Woodward 
V.  Woodward,  2  Rich.  Eq.  23,  28;  and 
Douglass  V.  McDill,  1  Spears,  139,  140. 

8  Ware  v.  Owens,  42  Ala.  212,  217. 

9  Scammon  v.  Campbell,  75  111.  223, 
228. 


ANTE-NUPTIAI.   CONTRACTS. 


263 


for  the  payment  of  debts  of  the  deceased,  under  order  of  the  pro- 
bate court,  does  not  include  the  dower  right  of  the  Dower  not  con- 
widow  ;  hence  she  will  not  be  precluded  bv  such  sale,  "^'9'?'^  '^>'  ^!^- 

'  .  *  ministrator  s 

although  she  herself  made  it  as  administratrix,  from  sale  of  lands, 
clainiiug  her  dower  in  the  lands  sold  against  the  vendee.^  But  a 
sale  or  mortgage  by  her  as  dowress,  in  connection  with  the  heirs, 
conveys  her  dower  right,  which  she  cannot  afterward  set  up 
against  any  person  •,^  and  she  may  become  a  party  to  a  sale  by  the 
administrator,  conveying  her  dower  interest  to  the  purchaser  at 
the  administrator's  sale,^  and  is  then  entitled  to  an  allowance  out 
of  the  proceeds  of  sale."*  The  same  result  follows  where  the  pro- 
bate court  is  empowered  by  statute  to  order  the  sale  of  real  estate 
free  from  the  widow's  dower.^ 

§  118.    Ante-Nuptial  Contracts   as   affecting    Dower.  —  Jointures, 
SO  named  from  the  joint  tenancy  thereby  created  in  the  husband 
and  wife,*^  were  introduced  by  the  English  Statute  of 
Uses"  in  lieu  of  dower,  which,  as  has  already  been 
stated,^  was  recognized  by  the  common  law  as  attaching  to  strictly 
legal  seisin  only,  and  wholly  repudiated  in  chancery.     Originall}^, 


1  Pliinney  v.  Johnson,  13  S.  C.  25,  28  ; 
although  slie  herself  advised  the  sale :  To- 
ledo, P.  &  VV.  R.  Co.  V.  Curtenius,  65  111. 
120 ;  Tiner  v.  Christian,  27  Ark.  300,  312 ; 
Duke  V.  Brandt,  51  Mo.  221 ;  although 
the  probate  court  ordered  the  sale  free  of 
dower:  Webb  v.  Smith,  40  Ark.  17,  25; 
Coinpton  V.  Pruitt,  88  Ind.  171,  177 ; 
Pepper  r.  Zahnsinger,  94  Ind.  88 ;  Hutch- 
inson V.  Lemcke,  107  Ind.  121 ;  Diefen- 
derfer  v.  P^shleman,  113  Pa.  St.  .305. 

'^  Hoppin  V.  Ho])pin,  96  III.  205,  270, 
272.  One  of  the  grounds  upon  which  this 
decision  was  based  is  that  the  warrantor 
is  not  permitted  to  attack  a  title,  the 
validity  of  which  he  has  covenanted  to 
maintain:  Clark  v.  P>aker,  14  Cal.  612, 630; 
Van  Rensselaer  u.  Kearney,  11  How.  297, 
325.  So  where  she  represents  her  hus- 
band as  being  dead,  and  conveys  with  the 
children,  she  will  be  equitably  estopjied 
from  asserting  her  dower  upon  the  hus- 
band's actual  death  :  Rosenthal  v.  May- 
liugh,  33  Oh.  St.  155,  159;  2  Scrib.  on 
Dower,  251  et  scq. 

*  In  Alabama,  by  filing  her  written 
consent  in  the  office  of  the  probate  judge, 
to  the  end  that  a  complete  title  may  be 


vested  in  the  purchaser  at  the  adminis- 
trator's sale  :  Code,  1886,  §  2127.  If  she 
fail  to  file  such  consent,  the  sale  does  not 
convey  her  dower,  and  she  has  no  interest 
in  the  proceeds,  but  may  pursue  her 
dower  in  the  land  unaffected  by  such 
sale:  Bradford  v.  Bradford,  66  Ala.  252, 
256. 

*  Where  the  probate  court  has  no 
jurisdiction  in  the  subject  of  dower,  it  is 
doubtful  whether  it  can  order  the  pay- 
ment to  the  widow  of  her  share  in  the 
proceeds  ;  but  if  there  has  been  a  conver- 
sion, the  jurisdiction  is  undoubted  :  Hart 
V.  Dunbar,  4  Sm.  &  M.  273,  287.  Nor  can 
the  administrator  recover  from  the  estate 
the  sum  he  has  paid  the  widow  for  her 
release  of  dower  in  lands  sold  by  him 
under  probate  license :  Needham  v.  Be- 
lote,  39  Mich.  487. 

5  Schmitt  V.  Willis,  40  N.  J.  Eq.  515. 

s  Tomlins,  Law  Diet. 

7  27  Hen.  VIII.  c  10.  One  of  the  mis- 
chiefs sought  to  be  remedied  b}'  this  stat- 
ute is  recited  to  be  "  that  by  uses  men 
lost  their  tenancies  by  the  curtesy,  and 
women  their  dowers." 

8  Ante,  §  111. 


264  ESTATES   OF   DOWER    AND   CURTESY.  §  1^8 

the  word  meant  a  joint  estate  limited  to  both  husband  and  wife, 
but  by  the  later  rules  may  be  an  estate  limited  to  the  wife  only, 
expectant  upon  a  life  estate  in  the  husband.^  The 
UsL"irthe  provisions  of  the  Statute  of  Uses  relating  to  joint- 
United  states.    ^^.^  j^^^g  ^gg^  substantially  adopted  in  most  of  the 

United  States. 

Equitable  jointures  differ  from  legal  jointures  chiefly  in  this, 
that  the  former  are  good,  although  the  estate  settled  upon  the 

Jointures  in  ^^^^^^  ^^  ^®^^  ^^^^'^  ^"®  ^^  freehold  to  coutinuo  during 
equity.  jjgj.  ijfe^  if  she  be  of  age  and  join  in  the  deed;^  and  in 

most  States  any  pecuniary  provision  made  for  the  benefit  of  the 
intended  wife  in  lieu  of  dower  will,  if  assented  to  by  her,  operate 
as  a  bar.3  n  appears  that  courts  incline  to  a  liberal  construction 
of  contracts  in  support  of  settlements  made  as  a  substitute  for 
dower;*  whether  a  legal  bar  to  dower  exist  or  not,  courts  of 
equity  will  enforce  specific  performance  of  ante-nuptial  agree- 
ments in  lieu  of  dower,  according  to  the  same  principles  which 
govern  them  in  other  cases  of  specific  performance  of  contracts.^ 
Hence  the  provisions  made  for  the  wife  must  be  fair  and  reason- 
able, or  she  may  elect  to  take  her  dower  instead  ;6  the  covenants 
must  be  fully  performed  on  the  part  of  the  husband  ;  a  failure 
to  comply  with  them  through  his  fault  or  neglect  destroys  the 
validity  of  her  covenant  not  to  claim  dower.^  It  is  held  m  some 
cases  that  marriage  alone  is  not  a  sufficient  consideration,  the 
ante-nuptial  agreement  to  relinquish  dower  without  some  provision 
in  lieu  thereof  being  deemed  contrary  to  public  policy  ; «  but  in 

1  Abb.  Law  Diet.,  tit.  "Jointure."  Babcock  v.  Babcock,  53   How.    Pr.    97, 

2  2  Scrib.  on  Dower,  409,  §  35.  100. 

3  A  statutory  provision  that  a  jointure  «  Elvers  v.  Rivers,  3  Desaus.  190,  195 ; 
in  favor  of  an  intended  wife  shall  bar  Farrow  v.  Farrow,  1  Del.  Ch.  457  ;  Shaw 
any  claim  for  dower,  does  not  deprive  v.  Boyd,  5  S.  &  R.  309.  It  is  self-evident 
her  of  the  power  to  bar  ber  dower  by  that  a  contract  induced  by  fraudulent 
any  other  form  of  ante-nuptial  contract :  representations  is  void :  Peaslee  v.  Peas- 
Barth  v.  Lines,  118  111.  374.  lee,  17  N.  East.  R.  (Mass,)  506,  514  ;  and 

*  "  Disregarding  forms,  the  aim  should  such  a  contract  cannot  be  ratified  during 

be  to  protect  the  rights  of  dower,  and  if  coverture :  lb.,  p.  515. 

that  object  is  attained  by  the  agreement,  ''  SuUings  v.    SuUings,   9   Allen,  2.34, 

the  law  is  satisfied  without  any  nice  dis-  2-37  ;    Butman  v.  Porter,  100  Mass.  337, 

criminations  between  legal  and  equitable  339 ;  Camden  Mut.  Association  r.  Jones, 

jointures  "  :  Logan  v.  Phillips,  18  Mo.  22,  23  N.  J.  Eq.  171,  173  ;  Garrard  v.  Garrard, 

28;  Vincent  y.Spooner,  2  Gush.  467,  474;  7   Bush,  486,  441;    Johnson  v.  Johnson, 

Findley  v.  Findley,  11  Graft.  484.  437  ;  23  Mo.  561,  568. 

Andrews  v.  Andrews,  8  Conn.  79,  85.  »  Curry  v.  Curry,  10  Hun,  366.  .370  et 

5  Gould    V.  Womack,  2  Ala.  83,  91  ;  seq. ;  Stilley  v.  Folgpr,  14  Oliin,  610.  647; 

Jenkins    v.    Holt,   109   Mass.    261,   262;  Grogan  v.  Garrison,  27  Oh.  St.  50,64  e<  se-?. 


§  118  ANTE-NUPTIAL   CONTRACTS.  266 

others  marriage  is  held  a  sufficient  consideration  to  support  a  con- 
tract for  the  relinquisliment  of  dower,  if  fairly  entered  into  by  a 
woman  sui  juris}     But   the  breach  of  a  covenant  collateral   to 
the  controlling  purpose  of  the  contract,  without  fraud  on  the  hus- 
band's part,  will  not  be  construed  as  entitling  her  to  claim  dower.'-^ 
Post-nuptial  settlements  are  not  absolutely  binding  upon  the 
widow,  as  a  bar  to  her  dower,  either  at  law  or  in  equity  ;3  if  not 
a  legal  jointure  within  the  Statute  of  Uses,  she  will  at  Post-nuptiai 
law  be  entitled  to  both  the  provision  and  her  dower  ;*  settlements, 
but  in  equity,  and  at  law  in  cases  where  the  settlement  would, 
if  made  before  marriage,  constitute  a  legal  jointure,  y^    .^  , 
she   is   put   to   her   election    whether   she  will   take  'ween  dower 

...  c        A  •       1  •       ^""^  jointure. 

dower  or  the  jomture."  And  where,  as  is  the  case  ni 
many  States,  the  statute  authorizes  married  women  to  convey 
their  property  as  if  single,  the  wife's  release  of  her  right  to  dower 
to  her  husband  is  binding,  if  made  for  a  good  consideration,  and 
without  fraud  or  improper  dealing.^  But  if  she  release  her  dower 
on  the  husband's  oral  promise  to  convey  to  her  other  lands,  and 
he  becomes  insolvent  before  he  has  done  so,  equity  will  not  aid 
her  to  obtain  a  decree  for  dower  against  his  assignee.'^  To  re- 
quire the  widow  to  elect,  the  intention  to  exclude  dower  by  the 
marriage  settlement  must  be  shown,  either  by  express  words,  or 
manifest  implication ;  otherwise,  she  will  be  entitled  to  both.^ 

The  wife  may  effectually  relinquish  dower  by  an  agreement  to 
separate ;  deeds  of  separation  are  upheld  by  courts  in  this  coun- 
try, as  well  as  in  England,  if  made  through  the  me-  Deeds  of 
dium  of  a  trustee,^  or  even  without  a  trustee,  if  con-  reparation. 
summated.^o     But  "  courts  will  not  enforce  any  contract  which  is 

1  Forwoofl   V.  Forwood,  5   S.  W.  R.  wbctlier  before   or  after  the  hnsl)and's 
(Ky.)  3G1,  and  see  authorities  there  cited,  deatli :  McLeery  r.  IVFcLeery,  6-5  Me.  172. 

2  Freeland  v.  Freeland,  128  Mass.  509,  *  Hastinsrs  v.  Dickinson,  7  Mass.  153, 
^^2-  155,    affirmed    in    Gibson   i\    Gibson,    15 

3  Townscnd    v.   Townsend,    2    Sandf.  Mass.  106.  110 ;  Vance  i-.  Vance,  21  Me. 
711;    Crane  v.   Cavana,    36   Barb.    410;  364,  .SRO. 

Martin  v.  Martin,  22  Ala.  86;  Walsh  v.  5  Parham  v.  Parham,  6   Humph.  287, 

Kelly,  34  Pa.  St.  84;  Carson  v.  Murray,  297;  Butts  i-.  Trice,  69  Ga.  74,  76. 
3  Pai.  483;  Rowe  v.  Hamilton,  3  Me.  63.  6  Rimades  v.  Davis.  51  Mich.  306. 

Accepting  a  gift  of  personalty  from  the  7  Winchester  t;.  Holmes,  138  Mass.  540. 

husband  in  contemplation  of  death,  and  8  Ljipg    i-.  Fleming,   1   Dev.  Eq.    185, 

declared  in    writing  to  be   for   her  indi-  188;  Swaine  v.  Perine,  5  John.  Ch.  482^ 

vidual  use  and  benefit,   is  no  waiver  of  488 ;  Dudley  v.  Davenport,  85  Mo.  4fi-2. 
dower:    Mitchell    v.   Word,  60   Ga.  525,  9  Garbut  r.  Bowling,  81  Mo.  214,  217, 

531 ;  nor  accepting  a  deed  of  real  estate:  citing  authorities. 
Dockray  v.  Milliken,   76  Me.  617,  519;         1°  Hutton  y.  Hutton,  3  Pa.  St.  100,  104. 


266  ESTATES    OF    DOWER    AND    CURTESY.  §  119 

the  price  of  consent  by  one  party  to  tlic  procurement  of  a  divorce 
by  the  other" ;i  hence  an  agreement  whereby  the  wife,  jjcnding 
her  action  for  divorce,  agreed  with  her  husband,  for  a  considera- 
tion paid  partly  at  the  time,  the  remainder  to  be  paid  when  the 
divorce  was  granted,  to  make  no  claim  for  alimony,  is  void,  as 
being  against  public  policy,  and  constitutes  no  bar  against  her 
right  to  dower.2 

§  119.    Election  between   Dower   and    Devise.  —  It   has    already 
been  observed,^  that  it  is  the  policy  of   the   law  to   place  the 
widow's  dower  beyond  the  reach  of  the  husband,  who 
superior  to        Can,  at  common  law  as  well  as  under  the  statutes  of 
^''^''^^'  most  States,  neither  sell,  convey,  nor  otherwise  dis- 

pose of  his  real  estate  so  as  to  deprive  his  widow  of  dower  therein 
without  her  free  consent.  A  devise  to  such  effect  is  a  fortiori 
Hence  widow  void,  unlcss  shc  chooscs  to  abide  by  it.  If,  therefore, 
ifrdcmion  to  tl^e  husband  devise  lands  to  his  wife,  she  will,  under 
duwer,  unless     ^]^g  Eufflish  doctriuo  as  held  before  the  change  made 

indicated  to  be  " 

in  lieu  of  it.  by  statute  in  this  respect,"^  take  them  as  a  voluntary 
gift  in  addition  to  what  the  law  secures  to  her  as  dower,  unless  it 
appear  plainly,  either  by  express  words  or  by  manifest  implica- 
tion, that  the  devise  was  intended  to  exclude  dower.^  The  statute 
referred  to,  enacted  long  after  the  establishment  of  the  American 
govei-nment,^  is  of  no  force  proprio  vigore  in  any  of  the  States  of 
the  Union ;  and  the  doctrine  holding  devises  to  be  given  in  addi- 
tion to  dower,  if  not  otherwise  directed  by  the  testator,  is  recog- 
nized in  all  of  them  where  not  abrogated  or  modified  by  their  own 
statutes.     This   is   the   rule   in    California,^   Connecticut,^   Dela- 

1  Per  Pardee,  J.,  in  Appeal  of  Seeley,  ^  20  August,  1833. 

14  Atl.  R.  (Conn.)  291.  "^  Instead  of  dower  or  curtesy,  spouses 

2  Altliougli  tlie  divorced  wife,  upon  take  respectively  one  lialf  of  the  commu- 
payment  of  the  consideration  after  the  nity  property  (as  to  which  see  fwsf,  §  122) 
decree,  executed  a  receipt  to  tlie  hus-  upon  the  dcatli  of  the  other;  and  it  is 
band  "  in  full  of  all  demands  to  date,  held  that  any  devise  by  a  husband  to  his 
and  particularly  in  full  for  all  claims  of  wife  goes  to  her  in  addition  to  the  moiety 
alimony  "  :  Appeal  of  Seeley,  supra.  See  secured  to  her  by  law  :  Beard  v.  Knox,  5 
also  to  same  effect  Orth  v.  Orth,  37  N.  Cal  252,  2.56,  approved  in  Payne?;.  Payne, 
W.  R.  67.  18  Cal.  291,  301,  and  in  Estate  of  Silvey, 

3  Ante,  §  105.  42  Cal.  210,  213.     See  also  Pratt  v.  Doug- 

4  3  &  4  Wm.  IV.  c.  105,  §  9.  lass,  38  N.  J.  Eq.  516,  535,  in  which  the 

5  Birmingham  v.  Kirwan,  2  Sch  &  Lef.  law  of  California  in  this  respect  is  clearly 
444,  452;   Roper,  Hush    &  Wife,  508;  2  stated. 

Scrib.  on  Dower,  440  ;  Lawrence  v.  Law-  ®  Lord   v.   Lord,  23  Conn.   327,  331 ; 

rence,  2  Vern.  365 ;   Lemon  v.  Lemon,  8  Hickey   v.  Hickey,  26   Conn.   261.     See 

Vin.  Abr.  3G6,  pi.  45;  Hitchin  i'.  Hitchin,  Anthony  t'.  Anthony,  55  Conn.  2.:6,  hold- 

Pr.  Ch.  133 ;  Brown  v.  Parry,  2  Dick.  685.  ing  that  a  testator  giving  his  widow  two 


ELECTION    liETWEEN    DO  WE  II    AND    DEVISE. 


267 


ware,^  Georgia,^  lowa,^  New  Jersey,*  New  York/'  South  Carolina,'^ 
Virginia,'^  and  West  Virginia.^ 

Tliis  rule,  however,  was  changed  in  England  by  the  statute 
ah'eady  mentioned,''  which  has  been  incorporated,  with  some  mod- 
ifications, into  the  codes  of  many  States.  According  Devise  in  Ueu 
to  the  English  statute,  the  devise  to  the  wife  of  any  o^^"^*''"- 
land,  or  any  estate  or  interest  therein,  barred  her  of  dower,  unless 
a  contrary  intention  appeared  from  the  will,  thus  reversing  the 
prcsumj)tion  arising  from  an  unexplained  devise  for  the  benefit 
of  the  widow.  In  some  of  the  States  the  language  of  the  stat- 
ute is  more  sweeping  than  that  of  the  English  act,  and  seems  to 
bar  dower  in  every  case  where  the  widow  takes  anything  under 
the  will.  So,  for  instance,  in  the  States  of  Florida  ^^  and  North 
Carolina.^i  Generally,  however,  the  condition  allowing  her  to  en- 
joy both  the  devise  and  dower  is,  that  such  shall  clearly  appear 
to  be  the  testator's  intention,  either  expressed  or  necessarily  im- 
plied ;  so  held  in  the  States  of  Alabama,^  Arkansas,^^  Illinois,^* 


thirds  of  tlie  entire  income  of  tlie  personal 
property,  and  the  use  of  nearly  one  iialf 
of  all  the  real  estate,  meant  to  exclude 
dower. 

^  Kinsey  v.  Woodward,  3  Ilarr.  450, 
464,  followed  in  Warren  v.  Morris,  4  Del. 
Ch.  289,  299. 

2  Tooke  V.  Hardeman,  7  Ga.  20,  27  ; 
Speer  v.  Speer,  67  Ga.  748,  749. 

^  Iowa  lias  abolished  dowerat  common 
law  (see  unte,  §  106),  but  courts  still  use 
the  term  "  dower  "  to  dosifjnate  tlie  wid- 
ow's rigiit  in  the  property  of  her  deceased 
husband.  It  is  lield  that  devise  to  the 
wife  of  a  life  estate  in  all  the  testator's 
real  property  is  consistent  with  her  dower 
right  to  one  third  of  it  in  fee  :  Dauglierty 
V.  Dauglierty,  69  Iowa,  677  ;  Bhiir  v. 
Wilson,  57  Iowa,  177,  following  Metteer 
V.  Wiley,  34  Iowa,  214,  and  other  earlier 
eases.  Specific  devise  of  one  third  of  all 
testator's  estate  held  to  be  in  addition  to 
her  dower  or  distributive  share  under 
the  statute  :  Estate  of  Blaney,  34  N.  W. 
R.  768. 

*  Colgate  V.  Colgate.  23  N.  J.  Eq.  372. 

5  Konvalinka  i-.  Sciilegel,  104  N.  Y. 
125  ;  Matter  of  Frazer,  92  N.  Y.  239,  250  ; 
Earl,  J.,  in  the  Matter  of  Zahrt,  94  N.  Y. 
605.  600;  Lewis  r.  Smith,  ON.  Y.  502, 
511 ;  Adsit ;;.  Adsit,  2  Johns.  Ch.  448,  450. 


^  Braxton  v.  Freeman,  6  Rich.  L.  35, 
citing  earlier  South  Carolina  decisions. 

^  Herbert  v.  Wren,  7  Cr.  370,  377; 
Dixon  V.  McCue,  14  Graft.  540,  548,  an- 
nouncing tlie  rule  on  this  subject  to  be 
the  same  as  announced  in  England  by 
Chancellor  Kindersley,  in  Gibson  v.  Gib- 
son, 17  Eng.  L.  &  Eq.  R.  349,  352. 

»  Tracey  v.  Shumate,  22  W.  Va.  474, 
499 ;  Atkinson  v.  Sutton,  23  W.  Va.  197, 
200.  In  both  of  these  cnscs  it  is  held  tliat 
evidence  showing  the  situation  of  the  tes- 
tator and  the  circumstances  surrounding 
him  at  the  time  of  writing  the  will  is 
competent  to  show  his  intention. 
9  3  &  4  Wm.  IV.  c.  105,  §  9. 

1''  McClell.  Dig.  475,  §  1.  The  widow 
loses  her  dower  right  unless  she  dissent 
from  tlie  will  within  one  year:  Wilson  c. 
Fridenberg.  21  Fla.  386,  389. 

"  Code,  1883,  §  2103. 

1-  Dean  v.  Hart,  62  Ala.  308,  310,  citing 
earlier  Alabama  cases. 

13  Apperson  v.  Bolton,  29  Ark.  418,  427. 

»  Blatciiford  r.  Newberry,  99  111.  11,  55, 
in  which  Mr.  Justice  Sheldon  remarks 
that  the  legal  effect  of  a  devise  in  lieu 
of  dower  is  a  mere  offer  by  the  testator 
to  piircJiase  the  dower  interest  for  tlie 
benefit  of  the  estate  ;  United  States  ?•. 
Duncan,  4  McLean,  99,  in  which  it  was 


268 


ESTATES    OF   DOWER    AND    CURTESY. 


§119 


Indiana,!  Kansas,^  Kentucky ,3  Maine,*  Maryland,^  Massachusetts,^ 
Michigan,'  Minnesota,^  Mississippi,^  Missouri,io  Nebraska,"  New 
Hampshire,!^  Ohio,!^  Oregon,^*  Pennsylvania,!^  Rhode  Island,!^ 
Tennessee,!^  Vermont,!^  and  Wisconsin. ^^ 

If  the  devise  or  provision  in  the  will  be  inconsistent  with  tlie 
enjoyment  of  the  right  of  dower,^^  or  expressly  stated  to  be  in 
Where  the  licu  of  dower,^!  or  not  expressed  to  be  in  addition  to 
rakrbothT-*    dower  in  those  States  which  do  not  allow  dower  and 


held  that  the  testamentary  provision,  to 
bar  dower,  must  afford  a  reasonable  pre- 
sumption that  it  was  given  in  lieu  of 
dower. 

1  There  is  no  dower  in  Indiana ;  but 
the  principle  appHes  to  the  widow's  rights 
under  the  Statute  of  Descents,  and  it  is 
held  that  slie  cannot  take  both  under  a 
will  and  under  the  statute  in  the  absence 
of  a  clearly  expressed  intention  to  that 
effect :  Ragsdale  v.  Parrish,  74  Ind.  191, 
195.  Gift  of  the  residue  to  a  class,  "  after 
my  beloved  wife  has  taken  her  portion 
according  as  the  law  provides,"  clearly 
indicates  the  testator's  intention  tliat  a 
specific  devise  of  real  estate  to  his  wife, 
preceding  the  residuar}'  clause,  shall  be 
in  addition  to  her  share  under  tlie  statute  : 
Burkhaiter  v.  Burkhalter,  88  Ind.  368. 

2  Sill  V.  Sill,  31  Kans.  248,  252,  quoting 
the  statute,  Comp.  L.  1879,  ch.  117,  §  41 
et  spq.  But  the  husband  may  execute  a 
valid  will  giving  the  whole  of  his  prop- 
erty to  Ills  wife  :  Martindale  v.  Smith,  31 
Kans.  270. 

3  Smith  V.  Bone,  7  Bush,  867  ;  Ex- 
change Bank  v.  Stone.  80  Ky.  100,  115. 

4  Hnstings  v.  Clifford,  32  Me.  132; 
Allen  V.  Pray,  12  Me.  138. 

5  Durham  v.  Rhodes,  23  Md.  233,  242  ; 
Gough  V.  Manning,  26  Md.  347,  366. 

6  Pub.  St.  1882,  p.  750,  §  20;  Upham 
V.  Emerson,  119  Mass.  509,  510. 

'•  How.  St.  1882,  §  5750;  Tracy  v. 
Murray,  44  Mich.  109. 

^  Dower  being  abolished,  this  principle 
holds  good  under  the  law  of  descent  : 
Washburn  v.  Van  Steenwyk.  32  Minn.  836, 
349 ;  In  re  Gotzian,  34  Minn.  159. 

9  Wilson  V.  Cox,  49  Miss.  538,  544; 
Booth  V.  Stebbins,  47  Miss.  161,  164. 
But  in  this  State  also  dower  is  abolished 
by  statute  :  ante,  §  106. 


if>  Dougherty  v.  Barnes,  64  Mo.  159, 
161,  citing  other  Missouri  cases  ;  Kaes  v. 
Gross,  92  Mo.  647,  660 ;  Martien  v.  Norris, 
91  Mo.  465,  471. 

11  Comp.  St.  1887,  ch.  2.3,  §  17. 

12  Gen.  L.  1878,  p.  455,  §  13 ;  Copp  v. 
Hersey,  31  N.  H.  317,  330. 

13  Hibbs  V.  Insurance  Co.,  40  Oh.  St. 
543,  553 ;  Corry  v.  Lamb,  12  N.  East.  660. 

w  Code,  1887,  §2971. 

15  Watterson's  Appeal,  95  Pa.  St.  312, 
316. 

16  Pub.  St.  1882,  p.  472,  §  11;  Chapin 
V.  Hill,  1  R.  I  446  ;  see  Durfee,  Petitioners, 
14  R.  I.  47,  53. 

"  Code,  1884,  §  3251;  Jarman  v.  Jar- 
man,  4  Lea,  671,  673. 

18  Hathaway  v.  Hathaway,  44  Vt.  658  ; 
s.  c.  46  Vt.  234. 

19  Application  of  Wilber,  52  Wis.  295 , 
Wilber  V.  Wilber,  52  Wis.  298  ,  Van 
Steenwyck  v.  Washburn,  59  Wis.  483, 
497. 

20  Where,  for  instance,  the  directions 
of  the  testator  in  the  disposition  of  the 
estate  cannot  be  carried  into  effect  if  the 
widow  also  take  her  dower :  Dodge  v. 
Dodge,  31  Barb.  413,  417  ;  Tobias  v. 
Ketchum,  32  N.  Y.  319,  327  ;  Matter  of 
Zahrt,  94  N.  Y.  605,  609  ;  Speer  v.  Speer, 
67  Ga.  748 ;  Norris  v.  Clark,  10  N.  J.  Eq. 
51,  55;  Bailey  v.  Boyce,  4  Strobh.  Eq  84, 
91  ;  Ailing  v.  Cliatfield,  42  Conn.  276; 
Van  Guilder  v.  Justice,  56  Iowa,  669;  In 
re  Gotzian,  34  Minn.  159. 

21  It  is  immaterial  in  such  case  whether 
tlie  presumption  be  in  favor  of  cumulative 
right  to  devise  and  dower,  or  that  the 
devise  is  in  lieu  of  dower ;  for  in  every 
case  the  testator's  will  is  to  be  followed, 
if  not  in  derogation  of  the  widow's  statu- 
tory right. 


§  119  ELECTION    BETWEEN    DOWER   AND    DEVISE.  269 

devise  cumulatively  witliout  express  direction  or  man-  vise  and  dowpr, 
iicst  mtention  oi  the  testator,^  the  widow,  thou,i:li  she  to  take'eitiier, 
cannot  enjoy  both  her  dower  right  and  the  provision  made  for  her 
by  will,  may  elect  to  take  either  the  one  or  the  other. 

The  right  of  election  is  guaranteed  to  the  widow  in  the  fullest 
manner,  and  for  the  purpose  of  enabling  her  to  secure  her  own 
best  interests  and  greatest  advantage.  To  this  end 
she  is  entitled,  not  only  to  have  sufficient  time  to  tutes.aT^'' 
make  her  choice,  but  also  to  full  information  of  the  ^'*'''*'°"- 
condition  of  tlie  estate,  either  by  a  bill  in  equity  to  ascertain  the 
extent  of  the  respective  interests,^  or  by  a  full  disclosure  on  the 
part  of  the  executor  or  administrator,  or  by  the  judge  of  the  pro- 
bate court,  as  may  be  provided  by  statute.^  No  act  of  election 
will  be  binding  on  the  widow,  unless  done  under  a  full  knowledge 
of  all  the  circumstances,  and  of  her  rights,  and  with  the  intention 
of  electing.*  Thus  she  is  not  bound  by  an  election  made  under 
the  mistaken  supposition  that  the  estate  accepted  by  her  is  free 
from  all  claims  and  demands,  or  before  a  knowledge  of  the  cir- 
cumstances necessary  to  a  judicious  and  discriminating  choice 
has  been  obtained,^  or  if  it  was  induced  by  fraud  or  imposition.^ 
But  if  she  make  her  election  under  a  full  knowledge  of  the  facts, 
she  will  be  bound  thereby ,7  in  the  absence  of  fraud  or  unfair 
advantage,  even  though  she  did  not  understand  her  legal  rights.^ 
Thus,  by  her  deliberate  election  to  take  under  the  will  she  bars 

1  BMrnard   v.  Fall    River   Bank,   135  v.  Hardeman,    7  Ga.  20.  .30;   Reaves  v. 

Mass.  ;^20;  Cowdrey  v.  Hitchcock,  103111.  Garrett,  .34  Ala.  558,  562;  Sill  >•   Sill,  31 

2^^.  ^"3-  Kans.  248;  James  v.  Dunstan,  38  Kans. 

^  United  States  v.  Duncan,  4  McLean,  289;  Yorkly  v.  Stinson.  97  N.  0.  236. 
99,  102  ;  Melizet's  Appeal,  17  Pa.  St.  449,  5  In  such  case  equitv  will  relieve  her: 

455;  Hall  j;.  Hall,  2  McCord  Ch.  269,280;  Pinckney  v.  Pinckney,"  2  Hich.  Eq.  218, 

Smither  v.    Smither,  9  Bush,  230,  236;  237;  Upshaw  r.  Upshaw,  2  Hen.  &  Munf.' 

Grider  v.  Eubanks,  12  Bush,   510,  514;  381,  390,  393;  Osmun  r.  Porter,  39  N.J. 

Johnston  v.  Duncan,  G7  Ga.  61,  71.  Eq.  141. 

3  It  is  held  in  Tennessee,  that  if  the  «  McDaniel  i<.  Douglas,  6  Humph.  220, 

widow  is  prevented  by  the  fraud  of  the  229,  approving  Smart  v.   Waterhose,  10 

e.xecutor  or  other  person  from  dissentiug  Yerg.  94  ;  Morrison  v.  Morrison,  2  Dana, 

to  the  will,  the  executor  will  be  deemed  13,  18;  Elbert  v.  O'Neil,  102  Pa.  St.  302. ' 
a  trustee,  the  same  as  if  she  had  dissented  1  She   must    take   subject   to   all   the 

In  time:   Smart  r.  Waterhose,  10  Yerg.  charges    and    limitations    of    the    will  : 

94,103.  Kline's   Appeal,   117   Pa.    St.   139,   148; 

*  Payton  v.  Bowen,  14  R.  I.  375 ;  Mil-  Snook  v.  Snook,  43  N.  J.  Eq.  1.32. 
likin  V.  Wclliver,  37  Oh.  St.  460;  Ander-  8  jjght  v.  Light,  21  Pa.  St.  407;  Me- 
son's Appeal,  SO  Pa.  St.  476,  496;  O'Dris-  Daniel  v.  Douglas,  supra;   Bradfords  v. 
coll  r.  Koger,  2  Desaus.  295,  299  ;  English  Kents,  43  Pa.   St.   474,  484;    Cannon  v. 
V.  English,  3  N.  J.  Eq.  504,  510;  Tooke  Appersen,  14  Lea,  553,  5^2. 


270  ESTATES    or   DOWER    AND    CURTESY.  §  119 

herself  of  her  dower,  although  the  estate  prove  insolvent.^  Nor 
can  she  treat  her  election  as  a  nullity,  and  yet  retain  what  she  has 
received  in  virtue  thereof.^  The  statutes  of  the  several  States 
contain  minute  provisions  as  to  the  time  and  manner  in  which 
the  election  is  to  be  made  ;3  and  as  the  right  is  a  statutory  one, 
the  widow  is  held  to  a  strict  compliance  therewith.'*  If  she  permit 
the  time  to  expire  without  making  her  election,  she  will,  in  most 
States,  be  held  to  a  waiver  of  her  dower.^ 

The  right  to  elect  is  a  strictly  personal  one,  which  in  the 
absence  of  statutory  authority  can  be  exercised  by  no  one  for  her, 
although  she  die  before  the  time  given  to  make  the 
widow  a  Sr-  election  have  expired,^  or  be  insane  ;''  but  provision  is 
sonai  right.  ^^^^  ^^  statute,  in  some  instances,  authorizing  the 
widow  to  elect  by  attorney,  or  guardian.^  In  Maine  the  election 
bv  an  insane  widow  was  held  valid,  on  the  ground  that  the  acts  of 
an  insane  person  are  not  void,  but  voidable.^  In  the  case  of  infant 
widows  the  courts  sometimes  make  elections  for  them,^*^  or  it  must 
be  made  by  her  guardian.^^  In  England  courts  of  equity  would 
o-rant  relief  to  persons  under  disability  required  to  elect  between 
two  inconsistent  rights;^  and  this  doctrine  is  applied  in  some 
American  States  to  impose  upon  courts  of  equity  or  probate  courts 

1  Grider  v.  Eubanks,  12  Bush,  510,  514.  Boone  r.  Boone,  3  Har.  &  McH.  95  ;  Hin- 
See  Evans  v.  Pierson,  9  Rich.  L.  9.  ton  v.  Hinton,  6  Ired.  L.  274;  Welch  v. 

2  Steele  v  Steele,  64  Aln.  438,  461  ;  Anderson,  28  Mo.  293,  298  ;  Crozier's 
Tomlin  V.  Javne,  14  B.  Mon.  160,  162;  Appeal,  90  Pa.  St.  384;  Eltzroth  r.  Bin- 
see  Evans  V.  Pierson,  9  Puch.  L.  9.  ford,  71  Ind.  455. 

3  In  2  Scrib.  on  Dower,  505,  §  Uetseq.,  ''  Collins  v.  Carman,  5  Md.  503,  524; 
will  be  found  a  collection  of  these  statutes.  Lewis  v.  Lewis,  7  Ired.  L.  72  ;  Van  Steen- 

■*  It  was  held  in  Missouri,  in  the  cases  wyck  v.   Washburn,    59    Wis.   483,  501 ; 

of  Price  v.  Woodford,  43  Mo.   247,  25.3,  Heavenridge  v.  Nelson,  56    Ind.  90,   93 ; 

and  Ewing  v.  Ewing,  44  Mo.  23,  that  the  Pinkerton  v.  Sargent,  102  Mass.  568;  but 

failure  of  the  probate  court  to  notify  the  see  iiifra,  p.  271,  note  1. 

widow  of  her  right  of  election,  as  required  8  in  Delaware:  Rev.  St.  1874,  p.  534, 

by  statute,  does   not  operate  to  extend  §  7  ;  North  Carolina :  Code,  1883,  §  2108. 

the  time  given  her  by  the  statute.     See  In  Ohio  the  probate  court  appoints  some 

further,  on  this  point,  infra,  text  preced-  person  to  ascertain  what  would  be  most 

ing  note  12,  p.  271.  valuable   for   the    widow,  and  the  court 

5  Stephens  v.  Gibbes,  14  Fla.  331,  352 ;  enters  of  record  an  election  to  that  effect : 

Waterbury  v.  Netherland,  6  Heisk.  512;  Rev.  St.  1880,  §  59G6. 

Dougherty  v.  Barnes,  64  Mo.  159;  Gant  9  Brown  v.  Hodgdon,  31  Me.  6-5,  67. 

I).  Henly,  64  Mo.  162  ;  Cowdrey  v.  Hitch-  ^  Addison  v.  Bowie,  2  Bl.  Ch.  606,  623. 

cock,  103  111.  262,  270;  Zaegel  v.  Kuster,  "  Cheshire  v.  McCoy,  7  Jones  L.  376, 

51  Wis.  31,  39 ;  Kennedy  v.  Johnston,  65  377. 

Pa.  St.   451,  454;    Quarles  v.  Garrett,  4  12  gge   cases   cited   by   Cooper,  J.,   in 

Desaus.  145.  Wrigtit  r.   West,  2  Lea,  78,  82,  and  also 

0  Sherman   v.  Newton,  6  Gray,   307  ;  by  Freeman,  J.,  dissenting,  p.  95. 


§  119  ELECTION    BETWF.EN    DOWER    AND    DEVISE.  271 

the  duty  to  make  election  for  an  insane  widow  ; '  in  othoi-s,  the 
question  is  left  open  and  the  power  doubted  ."•^ 

Acts  in  pais  may  determine  an  election,  as  well  as  matter  of 
record  :  thus  assignment  of  dower  by  a  court  of  competent  juris- 
diction," the  filin";  of  a  petition  for  dower  within  the   ,  ^  . 

'  "  '  Ac\.9,  in  pnts 

time  allowed  to  make  the  election,*  renouncing  by  amounting  to 

1       .        ,1  .11  1       1    •      •  election. 

deed  the  provision  made  in  the  will  and  claiming 
dower,^  taking  possession  of  property  under  a  will  and  exercising 
unequivocal  acts  of  ownership  over  it  for  a  long  time,^  and  giv- 
ing written  notice  to  the  executors  of  her  intention,'^  have  all  been 
held  to  constitute  an  election  binding  upon  the  widow.  So  in  a 
State  where  the  widow  is  not  entitled  to  take  both  her  dower  and 
the  homestead  under  the  homestead  law,  her  continued  occupa- 
tion of  the  homestead  in  the  absence  of  an  election  to  take  dower 
will  be  deemed  an  election  to  take  under  the  homestead  right.^ 
But  where  not  only  the  time,  but  also  the  method  in  which  the  elec- 
tion is  to  be  made,  is  pointed  out  by  statute,  there  must  be  a  sub- 
stantial, if  not  literal,  compliance  with  its  provisions.^  Thus,  if 
the  renunciation  is  not  made  within  the  time  prescribed,!*^  or  not  in 
the  court  ^^  or  with  the  formalities  indicated,!^  the  widow  is  neither 
bound  nor  entitled  as  if  she  had  made  a  valid  election.  There  must 
be  something  more  than  a  mere  intention  or  determination  to 
elect ;  nor  is  the  declaration  of  such  an  intention  itself  sufficient.!^ 

1  Wriirlit  ;'.  West,  s?//jm,  Freeman  dis-  v.  Walthall,  14  Gratt.  518,  525:  Clay  v. 
sentinu  on  tiie  ground  that  such  election  Hart,  7  Dana,  1,  6;  Haynie  '•.  Dickens, 
must  nevertheless  be  made  within  the  68  111.  267  ;  Cory  v.  Cory,  37  N.  J.  Eq. 
statutory  period  allowed  therefor;  Ken-  198,201;  Rutherford  r.  Mayo,  76  Va.  117, 
nedy  r  Johnston,  65  Pa.  St.  451,  455;  123;  Exchange  Bank  v.  Stone,  80  Ky. 
Van  Steenwyck  v.  Washburn,  59  Wis.  100;  Clark  v.  Middlesworth,  82  Ind.  240, 
483,  504  et  seq. ;  State  v.  Ueland,  30  Minn.  247  ;  Cooper  v.  Cooper,  77  Va.  198,  205  ; 
277 ;  renhallow  v.  Kimball,  61  N.  H.  596.  Hovey  v.  Hovey,  61  N.  H.  599. 

2  Crenshaw  r.  Carpenter,  69  Ala.  572.  "  Greiner's  Appeal,  10-3  Ta.  St.  89. 

8  Cheshire  v.  McCoy,  7  .Jones  L.  :176.  ^  Thomas   v.   Thomas,   35   N.    W.  R. 

*  Raynor  v.  Capehart,  2  Hawks,  375,  (Iowa),  693. 

377.  9  Supra,  p.  270,  note  4. 

5  Hawley  v.  James,  5  Pai.  318,  435;  i"  Ex  parte  Moore,  7  How.  (^Tiss.)  6fi5 
Young  V.  Young,  1  A.  K.  Marsh.  662;  so  (the  written  renunciation  was  filed  within 
accepting  a  legacy  and  retaining  the  con-  four  days  after  the  expiration  of  the  six 
sideration  for  a  written  relinquishment  of  months  allowed  by  the  statute). 

dower  to  the  husband  estoj)  her.    Stod-         "  Daudt  v.  Musick,  9  Mo.  App.  169; 
dard  v.  Calcompt,  41  Iowa,  320,  333.  Baldozier  v.  Haynes,  57  Iowa,  683  ;  Hous- 

6  Reed   v.   Dickerman,  12  Pick.    146  ;     ton  v.  Lane,  62  Iowa,  291. 

Delay  r.  Vinal,  1  Met.   (Mass.)  57,   65;  i-  Estate  of  Rhodes,  11  Phila.  10.3. 

Thompson  v.  Hoop.  6  Oh.  St.  480,  485 ;  i^  English  v.  English,  3  N.  J.  Eq.  504  ; 

Stark  V.  Hunton,  1  N.  J.  Eq.  216,  227;  Shaw  r.  Shaw,  2  Dana,  341,  343  ;  Forester 

Caston  V.  Caston,  2  Rich.  Eq.  1 ;  Craig  v.  Watford,  67  Ga.  508. 


272  ESTATES    OF    DOWER    AND    CURTESY.  §  119 

The  acceptance  by  the  widow  of  the  testamentary  provision 
made  for  her,  in  lieu  of  her  right  of  dower  in  the  testator's  estate, 
Dower  under  g^ves  her  an  interest  tlierein  superior  to  tliat  of  a  leg- 
will  has  prefer-  j^^^g  .  having  relinquished  her  dower,  which  is  para- 

ence  over  other  °  ~  ,.  n  <>  i         x 

legacies.  mount  to  the  rights  of  creditors  as  well  as  ot  legatees 

or  devisees,  she  thereby  became  a  purchaser  of  the  interest  repre- 
sented by  the  devise  or  legacy  to  her.  She  takes,  not  by  tlie 
bounty  of  the  testator,  but  in  virtue  of  a  contract  with  him,  the 
reciprocal  considerations  being  the  relinquishment  by  the  widow 
of  her  legal  right  of  dower,  thereby  enabling  the  testator  to  dis- 
pose of  his  estate  without  reference  thereto,  and  the  price  offered 
by  him  for  this  right,  consisting  in  the  devise  or  legacy  to  her.i 
But  while  it  is  agreed,  on  all  sides,  that  the  claim  of  the  widow 
having  relinquished  dower  is  superior  to  that  of  other  legatees  in 
the  will,  so  that  she  takes  to  their  exclusion,  if  there  is  a  defi- 
ciency, it  is  held  in  some  of  the  States  that,  since 
onequaiitr^^  slic  takcs  as  if  by  contract,  she  is  on  an  equality  with 
with  creditors,  pj.g(jj|.Qj.g^  .^^^  sliarcs  with  them  if  the  assets  are  in- 
sufficient to  pay  the  debts  and  her  legacy ;  2  but  the  view  seems 
to  preponderate  that  she  can  receive  nothing  by  way 
po.tponed'tlf  of  legacy  until  all  the  debts  have  been  paid.^  In 
creditors.  Missouri  it  is  held  that  the  widow  taking  under  a  wMll 

specifically  disposing  of  all  the  real  and  personal  property  of  the 
testator,  must  contribute  to  the  payment  of  debts  ratably  with 
other  legatees  and  devisees.* 

It  may  be  remarked  in  this  connection,  that  the  renunciation  of 
dower  enures  to  the  estate,  and  has  been  held  to  go  to  the  heir  or 
Dower  re-  distributee  in  default  of  testamentary  disposition,^  so 
that  the  widow  herself  is  not  precluded  from  taking 


nounced  enures 
to  estate. 


1  Isenliart  v.  Brown,  1  Edw.  Ch.  411,  3  Beekman  v.  Vanderveer,  3  Dem.  619, 
413,  citing  English  and  American  author-  622  ;  Paxson  v.  Potts,  3  N.  J.  Eq.  ol3,  S24  ; 
ities  ;  2  Scrib.  Dower,  527,  §  59  ;  1  Jarm.  Bray  v.  Neill,  21  N.  J.  Eq.  343,  850  (but 
on  Wills,  *467,  and  Bigelow's  note,  p.  a  legacy  given  in  lieu  of  dower  does  not 
*458,  collecting  American  cases  ;  as  to  the  abate  on  deficiency  of  assets,  if  the  testa- 
preference  of  legacies  in  lieu  of  dower  tor  left  real  estate  of  which  the  widow  is 
over  other  legacies,  see  post,  §  452,  and  dowable :  Howard  r.  Francis,  30  N.  J.  Eq. 
(■ases.  444,  447)  ;  Chambers  v.  Davis,  15  B.  Mon. 

2  Tracy  v.  Murrav,  44  Mich.  109,  112;  522,  527  ;  Arrington  v.  Dortch,  77  N.  C. 
Lord  V.  Lord,  23  Conn.  327,  330;  Thomas  367;  Steele  v.  Steele,  64  Ala.  438,  462; 
V.  Wood,  1  Md.  Ch.  296,  300 ;  Gibson  v.  Hanna  v.  Palmer,  6  Col.  156,  161 ;  Miller 
McCormick,10Gill&J.65,  113;  Shackel-  v.  Buell,  92  Ind.  482;  Warren  v.  Morris, 
ford  V.  Miller,  91  N.  C.  181,  187  (giving  4  Del.  Ch.  289,  306. 

the  widow  preference  to  creditors  under  *  Brant's  Will,  40  Mo.  266,  277. 

the  statute).  ^  1  Jarm.  on  Wills,  *466. 


§  120  STATUTE   OF   LIMITATIONS.  273 

or  sharing  therein  as  heiress  or  distributee,  although  slie  could 
not  take  as  dowress  ;  ^  but  it  seems  that  the  declaration  by  the 
testator  that  the  legacy  is  to  be  in  lieu  of  dower,  prevents  her  from 
taking  anything  elsc.^ 

On  the  other  hand,  the  rejection  by  the  widow  of  the  provisions 
made  for  her  by  will  generally  results  in  the  diminution  or  con- 
travention of  devises  and  legacies  to  other  parties.  ^^^^^  ^^^  ^j^^_ 
The  rule  in  such  case  is,  that  the  devise  or  legacy  tion  on  devises 

...  to  otliers. 

which  the  widow  rejects  is  to  be  applied  in  compensa- 
tion of  those  whom  her  election  disappoints.^  If  she  has  elected 
to  take  dower  in  another  State,  it  will  be  presumed  that  such  has 
been  set  off  to  her  there,  and  she  cannot  resist  the  sale  of  real 
estate  in  the  forum  without  rebutting  such  presumption.'*  Where 
the  right  of  dower  includes  title  to  property  specifically  devised, 
the  widow's  election  to  take  dower  will  defeat  such  devise,  and  the 
devisee  has  no  recourse  upon  the  estate  for  its  value.'^ 

§  120.    Dower   as  affected   by  the   Statute  of   Limitations,  and   by- 
Estoppel.     It  was  early  settled  in  England,  and  the  doctrine  was 
adopted  in  many  of  the  States,  that  the  widow's  remedy  for  the 
assignment  of  dower  was  not  within  the  operation  of  the  Statute 
of  Limitations.^    By  the  English  Statute  of  Limitations,'  however, 
suits  for  dower  were  limited  to  twenty  years  after  the  Right  of  dow- 
death  of  the  husband  ;  and  similar  statutes  exist  in  afteHa'pse  of 
some   of  the  United  States.     Thus  in   Alabama   the  many  years, 
remedy  of  the  widow  is  barred,  as  against  the  alienees  of  the  hus- 
band, after  three  years ;  ^  and  although  the  Statute  of  Limitations 
does  not  propria  vigore  limit  the  time  for  the  assignment  of  dower 
as  against  heirs,  yet  a  court  of  equity,  or  even  a  court  of  law,  upon 
principles  of  public  policy  and  general  convenience,  may  refuse  to 
intervene  for  the  relief  of  a  dowress  who  has   slept  upon   her 
rights.'^     In  Georgia  dower  is  barred  by  a  failure  to  apply  for  it 

1  Kempton,  Appellant,  23  Pick.  163,  spoon  v.  Watts.  18  S.  C.  .S96,  423 ;  Mc- 
164.  Keynolds  v.  Counts,  9  Gratt.  242. 

2  Billiard  v.  Benson,  31  Hnn,  104  ;  *  Lawrence's  Appeal,  49  Conn.  411, 
Chamberlain   v.  Chamberlain,  43  N.   Y.  424. 

424,  443;    Kerr  v.  Dougherty,  79  N.  Y.  6  Gainer  v.  Gates,  34  N.  W.  R.  (Iowa), 

327,  345  ;  Matter  of  Benson,  96  N.  Y.  499.  798. 

3  2  Sto.  Eq.  Jar.  §  1075  ft  seij.  ;  Dean  ^  Per  Richardson,  C.  J.,  in  Barnard  i-. 
V.  Hart,  62  Ala.  308,  810  ;  Sandoe's  Edwards,  4  N.  H.  107,  109 ;  Ridgway  v. 
Appeal,  65  Pa.  St.  314,  316;  Jennings  v.  Mc Alpine,  31  Ala.  458,  462. 

.Jennings,  21  Oh.  St.  56,  80 ;  Timberlake  ^  3  &  4  \Vm.  IV.  c.  27. 

V.  Parish,  5  Dana,  345,  .352  ;  McCallister  «  Code,  1886,  §  1913. 

V.  Brand,  11  B.  Mon.  370,  395;  Wither-  »  Barksdale   v.  Garrett,  64  Ala.  277, 
VOL.   I.  —  18 


274 


ESTATES    OF   DOWER    AND    CURTESY. 


§120 


within  seven  years  from  the  death  of  the  husband.^  In  Indiana  ^ 
and  Mississippi,-'^  where  dower  is  now  abolished,*  it  was  formerly 
held  that  dower  was  included  in  the  general  Statute  of  Limita- 
tions ;  and  it  is  now  so  held  in  Illinois,^  lowa,^  Kentucky,''  Maine, 
New  Jersey,^  Ohio,i^  Pennsylvania,^^  and  South  Carolina.^^  In 
Michigan^^  and  North  Carolina,^*  the  Statute  of  Limitations  is  held 
not  to  include  dower  ;  while  in  Massachusetts,^^  New  Hampshire,^^ 
and  New  York,^'^  it  is  expressly  included.  In  Missouri  it  was  for- 
merly held  that  the  action  for  dower  was  not  barred  by  the  Stat- 
ute of  Limitations,^^  but  is  now  decided  to  be  within  the  statute 
barring  recovery  of  real  estate  after  ten  years.^^  But  although 
there  be  no  statute  of  limitation  applicable  to  dower,  the  stale- 
ness  of  a  demand  will  in  many  States  afford  an  equitable  defence 
against  a  widow  who  has  permitted  twenty  years  or  more  to 
elapse  before  asserting  her  right.^'^ 

Although,  as  a  general  rule,  the  right  of  dower  is  not  barred, 
at  law,  by  collateral  satisfaction,^^  yet  in  equity  the  acceptance  of 


281 :  "  When  twenty  years  are  suffered 
to  elapse  from  tlie  consuiuination  of  the 
rii^lit  of  dower,"  says  Brickell,  C.  J.,  in 
this  case,  "  in  the  absence  of  evidence 
wliich  shows  a  recognition  of  the  right  by 
the  parties  wiiose  estate  is  affected  by  it, 
witliout  the  assertion  of  the  right  by  one 
of  the  appropriate  remedies  provided  by 
law,  a  conclusive  presumption  of  its  ex- 
tinguishment arises,  not  only  in  courts  of 
equity,  but  in  courts  of  law "  :  citing 
earlier  Alabama  cases. 

1  Code,  1882,  §  1764,  pi.  4;  Doyal  v. 
Doyal,  31  Ga.  193 ;  but  the  time  does  not 
run  during  a  suspension  of  the  general 
Statute  of  Limitations :  McLaren  w.  Clark, 
62  Ga.  106,  116. 

2  Harding  v.  Presbyterian  Church,  20 
Ind.  71,  73. 

3  Torrey  v.  Minor,  1  Sm.  &  M.  Ch. 
489,  494. 

*  Ante,  §  106. 

°  But  no  period  short  of  seven  years' 
adverse  possession  under  claim  and  color 
of  title,  and  the  payment  of  taxes,  will 
work  a  bar  to  the  claim  of  dower,  and 
the  same  strictness  of  proof  as  in  actions 
of  ejectment  will  be  required  to  sustain 
the  bar  :  Stowe  v.  Steele,  114  111.  382,  386. 

0  Rice  V.  Nelson,  27  Iowa,  148,  156; 
but  only  when  there  is  adverse  posses- 


sion :  Berry  v.  Furhman,  30  Iowa,  462, 
464. 

^  Kinsolving  v.  Pierce,  18  B.  Mon. 
782,  785. 

8  Durham  v.  Angier,  20  Me.  242,  245. 

9  Conover  v.  Wright,  6  N.  J.  Eq.  613, 
615. 

i>  Tuttle  V.  Willson,  10  Oh.  24;  but 
where  the  widow  is  beyond  seas,  equity 
will  not  allow  the  staleness  of  her  claim 
to  bar  dower:  Larrowe  v.  Beam,  10  Oh. 
498,  502. 

11  Care  v.  Keller,  77  Pa.  St.  487,  493. 

12  Caston  V.  Caston,  2  Rich.  Eq.  1,  3. 

13  May  V.  Rumney,  1  Mich.  1,  7. 

1*  Campbell  v.  Murphy,  2  Jones  Eq. 
357,  S60. 

15  Pub.  St.  1882,  p.  742,  §  14. 

16  Robie  I'.  Flanders,  33  N.  H.  524,  528. 
1"  Spoor  V.  Wells,  3  Barb.  Ch.  199,  203. 

18  Littleton  v.  Patterson,  32  Mo.  357, 
365;  Johns  v.  Fenton,  88  Mo.  64. 

19  Robinson  v.  Ware,  94  Mo.  678  ; 
Beard  v.  Hale,  8  S.  W.  R.  156. 

2^  Barksdale  v.  Garrett,  64  Ala.  277, 
281  ;  Gilbert  v.  Reynolds,  61  111.  513, 
516;  KiddalU.  Trimble,  1  Md.  Ch.  143, 
150 ;  Carmichael  v.  Carmichael,  5  Humph. 
96,  99. 

'-1  2  Scrih.  on  Dower,  253,  and  authori- 
ties tliere  cited. 


§  121  ESTATE    BV    TIIK    CURTESY.  275 

anything  in  lieu  thereof  by  the  widow  estops  her  from   ^      ,j^^ 
claiming   dower   in   addition  thereto.^      TIiiis    it  has  i-ioiHiiy  in 

"  1         1        1         1   •  1       1    "^^  of  (lower 

been  held  that,  if  the  wife  join  her  husband  in  a  deed  estops  the 
conveying  his  real  estate  in  fraud  of  creditors,  and  ^"^ 
take  a  deed  from  the  vendee,  she  thereby  divests  herself  of  her 
inchoate  dower,  although  the  conveyances  are  subsequently  set 
aside  at  the  suit  of  creditors  ;2  and  if  she  join  in  her  husband's 
deed,  she  is  estopped  from  asserting  dower  against  parties  claim- 
ing under  it.^  So  if  the  widow  sell,  as  administratrix,*  or  join  in 
the  conveyance  by  the  heirs,^  with  covenant  of  good  and  perfect 
title,  she  is  estopped  from  claiming  dower  in  the  estate  sold.*  In 
like  manner,  she  will  be  estopped  from  asserting  dower  in  prop- 
erty which  by  her  conduct,  or  by  means  of  fraudulent  practices, 
she  has  induced  others  to  buy  under  the  belief  that  she  waives 
her  dower  right  ;*^  a  fortiori  if  she  enjoy  and  retain  the  fruits  and 
benefits  of  her  misguiding  acts."  But  it  is  no  defence  to  an  action 
for  dower,  that  the  defendant  was  a  purchaser  in  good  faith  and 
had  no  notice  of  the  widow's  right ;  ^  nor  is  the  statement  by  the 
widow,  that  the  purchaser  would  get  a  perfect  and  unquestionable 
title,  sufhcient  to  estop  her  from  claiming  dower,  if  it  could  not 
have  misled  the  purchaser.^  So  the  receipt  of  payments,  under 
an  agreement  that,  so  long  as  the  widow  made  no  claim  to  dower, 
a  certain  sum  should  be  paid  to  her  annually,  does  not  create  an 
estoppel.^*^ 

§  121.  Estate  by  the  Curtesy.  —  At  common  law  (both  at  law 
and  in  equity)  an  estate  of  freehold  for  the  term  of  his  life  de- 
volves upon  the  husband  on  the  death  of  his  wife,  known  as  the 
estate  by  the  curtesy  of  England,  in  the  lands  and  tenements  of 
which  she  was  seised  in  possession  during  coverture  in  fee  simple 
or  tail,  provided  lawful  issue  had  been  born  to  them  capable  of 
inheriting  the  estate.^^     This  estate,  like  dower,  of  which  it  is  the 

1  See  on  the  doctrine  of  election,  nnre,  ^  Allen  v.  Allen,  112  111.  32:>,  328; 
R  119.  Knox  V.  Ilicsinl^otliam,  75  Ga.  69'.',  701  ; 

2  Meyer  v.  Mohr,  19  Abb.  Pr.  299,  Dunlap  v.  Tliomas.  69  Iowa.  358  ;  Con- 
305  ;  but  see  as  to  dower  in  lands  fraudu-  noUy  v.  Branstler,  3  Bush,  702  ;  Sweaney 
lently  conveyed,  ante,  §  113.  v.  IMallory,  62  Mo.  485,  487. 

3  Dundas  ;.'.  Hitchcock,  12  How.  (U.S.)  '  Hodges  v.  Powell,  96  N.  0.  64,  68. 
256,    2o7  ;    Johnson    v.   Van   Velsor,    43  8  Cruize  v.  Billmire,  69  Iowa,  397. 
Mich.  208,  216;  Elmendorf  v.  Lockwood,          ^  Martien  c.  Norris,  91  Mo.  465,  475; 
57  N.  Y.  322,  325.  Heller's  Appeal,  116  Pa.  St.  534. 

'^  Macree  k  Mellon,  23  Miss.  585.  i"  Heller's  Appeal,  116  Pa.  St.  534,  544. 

5  Reeves  v.  Brooks,  80  Ala.  26,  29.  "  1  Washb.  R.  Prop.  *127  et  seq. 


276 


ESTATES    OF    DOWER    AND    CURTESY. 


§121 


counterpart,  was  introduced  into  the  several  States,  and  is  in  exist- 
ence in  most  of  them,  cither  by  special  enactment  of  the  legisla- 
ture, or  by  the  judicial  recognition  of  its  introduction  with  the 
common  law.  It  has  been  held  to  exist  in  Alabama,^  Arkan- 
sas,2  Connecticut,^  Delaware,*  Illinois,^  lowa,^  Kentucky/  Mainc,^ 
Maryland,^  Massachusetts,!^  Michigan,ii  Minnesota,!^  Missouri,!^ 
Nebraska,!*  New  Hampshire,!^  New  Jersey,!*^  New  York,i'  North 
Carolina,i8  Ohio,!^  Oregon,^^  Pennsylvania,2i  Rhode  Island,22  South 
Carolina,23  Tennessee,^*  Vermont,^^  Virginia,26  ^Vest  Yirginia,^"  and 
Wisconsin.28  In  California,  Louisiana,  Nevada,  and  Texas,  estates 
by  the  curtesy  and  dower  never  existed,^^  and  in  Colorado,  Indiana, 
Iowa,  Kansas,  Mississippi,  and  Nevada,  they  have  been  abolished 
by  statute.^^ 

The  requisites  to  entitle  a  husband  to  curtesy  are,  —  1.  Lavrful 
marriage ;  2.  Seisin  of  the  wife  during  coverture  of  an  estate  of 
inheritance,  either  legal  or  equitable ;  3.  Birth  of  a  child  alive 
during  the  life  of  the  wife  ;  ^^   and  4.  Death  of  the  wife. 

The  seisin  must,  in  general  terms,  be  one  of  inheritance,  l)nt 
may  be  either  legal  or  equitable  ;32  whether  there  must  be  actual 


1  Wells  V.  Thompson,  13  Ala.  703.  803. 

2  McDaniel  v.  Grace,  15  Ark.  4tj5,  483. 

3  Watson  V.  Watson,  13  Conn.  83,  86. 

4  1  Washb.  R.  Prop.  *r29. 

5  Monroe  v.  Van  iMeter,  100  111.  347, 
352. 

^  Curtesy  is  abolished  in  Iowa,  but 
the  husband  takes  "dower"  in  tlie  wife's 
estate  :  Hurleman  v.  Ilazlett,  55  Iowa, 
256. 

^  Mackey  v.  Proctor,  12  B.  Mon.  433, 
436  ;  Stewart  v.  Barclay,  2  Bush,  550,  554. 

8  1  Washb.  R.  Prop.  *129. 

9  Rawlings  v.  Adams,  7  Md.  26,  54. 
1"  Shores  v.  Carley,  8  Allen,  425. 

11  Brown  v.  Clark,  44  Mich.  309. 

12  1  Washb.  R.  Prop.  *129. 

13  Tremmel  v.  Kleiboldt,  75  Mo.  2.55. 
1*  Forbes  v.  Sweesy,  8  Neb.  520,  525. 

15  Foster  v.  Marshall,  22  N.  H.  491. 

16  Cushing  V.  Blake,  30  N.  J.  Eq.  689. 

17  Leach  v.  Leach,  21  Hun,  .381. 

18  Childers  v.  Bumgarner,  8  Jones  L. 
297  ;  Nixon  v.  Williams,  95  N.  C.  103. 

19  Koltenbrock  v.  Cracraft,  36  Oh.  St. 
584. 

20  Gilmore  v.  Gilmore,  7  Oreg.  374. 

21  Ege  V.  Medlar,  82  Pa.  St.  86. 


22  Briggs  V.  Titus,  13  R.  I.  136. 

23  Withers  v.  Jenkins,  14  S.  C.  507. 
2J  Crumley  v.  Deake,  8  Baxt.  361. 
2S  Haynes  v  Bourn,  42  Vt.  686. 

28  Carpenter  v.  Garrett,  75  Va.  129. 
2'  Winkler  r.  Winkler,  18  W.  Va.  455. 

28  1  Washb.  R.  Prop.  *129. 

29  Ante,  §  106. 

30  Avte,  §  106. 

31  In  Pennsylvania  the  birth  of  a  child 
is  not,  by  provision  of  the  statute,  neces- 
sary :  1  Washb.  R.  Prop.  *140,  §  46  ;  but 
the  maxim  of  the  common  law  in  this 
respect  is  Morhius  exitiis  non  est  erifiis.  and 
if  tlie  mother  die  before  exitiis,  and  tliat 
be  by  the  Caesarian  operation,  though  it 
be  born  alive,  it  would  not  be  sufficient 
to  give  tlie  father  curtesy  :  lb.,  referring 
to  Co.  Litt.  29  b;  Marselhs  v.  Tlialhi- 
mer,  2  Pai.  35,  42.  But  it  is  immaterial 
whether  the  child  is  born  before  or  after 
the  wife  acquires  her  estate  :  Jackson  v. 
Johnson,  5  Cow.  74, 102  ;  Comer  v.  Cham- 
berlain, 6  Allen,  166,  170. 

32  Robison  v.  Codman,  1  Sumn.  121, 
128;  Davis  v.  Mason,  1  Pet.  503,  508; 
Tremmel  v.  Kleiboldt,  6  Mo.  App.  549, 
affirmed,  75  Mo.  255;  Robinson  v.  Lake- 


§  122  COMMUNITY    PllOPEKTY.  277 

seisin,  as  at  common  law,  the  authorities  diverge  in  the  several 
States,  most  of  them  liolding  to  the  common  law  rule;Mjut  in 
some  instances  curtesy  is  allowed  in  reversions  to  which  the  wife 
was  entitled,  seisin  in  law  being  deemed  sufficient.^  Possession 
by  some  coparceners,  or  tenants  in  common,  amicable  to  the 
others,  is  sufficient  seisin  in  fact  to  vest  an  estate  by  the  curtesy 
in  the  husbands  of  such  others.'^ 

Ui)on  the  birth  of  a  child  alive,  the  husband's  right  to  curtesy 
in  the  lands  of  his  wife  is  said  to  be  initiate.  In  this  condition  it 
is  both  salable  and  assignable.*  It  is  consummated  by  the  death 
of  the  wife,  the  freehold  thereby  devolving  upon  him  ijjso  facto,  in 
like  manner  as  the  estate  of  the  ancestor  upon  the  heir;°  no  pre- 
liminary form  is  necessary  to  consummate  his  title. 

§  122.  Community  Property.  —  Community  is  the  name  by 
which,  in  the  French  law,  a  species  of  partnership  is  designated, 
contracted  between  a  man  and  a  woman  when  they  c„n,,j^„„ity 
are  lawfully  married  to  each  other.^  It  may  be  either  property. 
conventional,  when  formed  by  express  agreement  in  the  marriage 
contract,  or  legal,  arising  out  of  the  contract  itself.  It  is  neces- 
sary to  consider,  briefly  at  least,  the  nature  and  incidents  of  the 
property  affected  by  the  law  of  community,  because,  in  the  States 

nan,  28  Mo.  App.  135,  140;  Winkler  i'.  Bush  v.  Bradley,  4  Day,  298,305.  And 
Winkler,  18  W.  Va.  455,  456 ;  Gushing  it  is  generally  held  that  a  feme  covert  is 
r.  Blake,  oO  N.  J.  Eq.  G89  ;  unless  the  considered  in  law,  as  in  fact,  possessed  of 
devise  or  conveyance  bar  the  right :  Mon-  the  wild  lands  she  maj'  own,  so  as  to  sup- 
roe  V.  Van  Meter,  100  111.  .S47.  The  use  port  curtesy  in  her  husband:  Jackson 
of  such  words  as  "  exclusively  of  her  said  v.  Sellick,  8  John.  2fi2,  270;  Davis  v. 
husband,"  "  in  trust  for  the  sole  and  Mason,  1  Pet.  506  ;  Barr  v.  Galloway,  1 
separate  use  of  my  said  daughter  Ado-  McLean,  476,  480 ;  Guion  v.  Anderson,  8 
laido  without  and  free  from  the  control  Humph.  298,  322  ;  Day  v.  Cochran,  24 
of  any  husband,"  &c.,  in  the  conveyance  ISIiss.  261,  277.  In  Kentucky,  however, 
to  the  wife,  have  been  held  not  suflScient  this  exception  is  not  allowed:  it  was  first 
to  deprive  the  husband  of  curtesy  :  Rank  qtiestioned  in  Vanarsdall  i'.  Fauntleroy, 
V.  Rank,  13  Atl.  (Pa.)  827;  Dubs  v.  Dubs,  7  B.  Mon.  401,  402,  and  denied  in  Neely 
31  Pa.  St.  149,  citing  numerous  cases  ;  v.  Butler,  10  B.  Mon.  48,  51. 
Soltan  V.  Soltan,  93  Mo.  307.  =*  Carr  v.  Givens,  9  Bush,  679;  Wass 

1  Carpenter  v.  Garrett,  75  Va.  129,  r.  Bucknam,  .38  Me.  356,  360;  Vanars- 
134;    Stewart  v.  Barclay,  2   Bush,  550,  dall  i-.  Fauntleroy,  7  B.  Mon.  401. 

553;  Reed  r.  Reed,  3  Head,  491  ;  Tayloe  *  Briggs  v.  Titus,  13  R.  I.  1.36,  citing 
V.  Gould,  10  Barb.  .388,  400;  Orford  v.  and  approving  In  re  Voting  Laws,  12 
Benton,  .30  N.  H.  -395,  402;  Malone  v.  \\.  I.  586;  Martin  r.  Pepall,  6  R.  I.  92; 
McLaurin,  40  Miss.  161,  163  ;  Shores  Lang  r.  Hitchcock,  99  111.  550,  552,  citing 
V.  Carley,  8  Allen,  425;  Planters'  Bank  Rose  v.  Sanderson,  38  111.  247,  and  Short- 
ly. Davis,  31  Ala.  626,  629 ;  Mnckey  v.  all  v.  Hinckley,  31  111.  219. 
Proctor,  12  B.  Mon.  4-33,  436;  Nixon  i-.  '"  Watson  v.  Watson,  13  Conn.  83,  8-5. 
Williams,  95  N.  C.  10.3.  "  Bouvicr,  Law  Diet.,  "  Community." 

2  McKee  v.  Cottle,  6  Mo.  App.  416 ; 


278  ESTATES   OF    DOWER    AND    CUKTESY.  §  122 

of  California,  Louisiana,  Nevada,  and  Texas,  its  devolution  upon 
the  death  of  the  husband  or  wife  affects  the  common  law  prin- 
ciples governing  descent,  dower,  and  curtesy. 

Under  the  Code  of  Louisiana,^  every  marriage  superinduces  of 
right  partnership  or  community  of  acquests  or  gains,  unless  the 
Under  Code  of  Contrary  be  stipulated,  consisting  of  the  profits  of  all 
Luuisiaiia.  ^j^g  effccts  of  wliich  the  husband  has  the  administra- 
tion and  enjoyment,  of  the  produce  of  the  reciprocal  industry  of 
both  husband  and  wife,  and  of  the  estates  which  they  may  acquire 
during  coverture,  either  by  donations  to  them  jointly,  or  by  pur- 
chase, subject  to  the  debts  contracted  during  the  marriage,  which 
must  be  acquitted  out  of  the  common  fund,  whilst  the  debts  of 
husband  or  wife  anterior  to  the  marriage  are  payable  out  of  their 
own  individual  effects.  The  husband  administers  tlie  community 
property  and  may  dispose  of  the  same  without  the  wife's  consent ; 
but  she  has  her  action  against  the  husband's  heirs  if  she  prove 
that  he  has  sold  or  otherwise  disposed  of  it  in  fraud  to  her  injury. 
Upon  the  dissolution  of  the  marriage  all  the  effects  in  the  recip- 
rocal possession  of  both  husband  and  wife  are  presumed  common 
effects  or  gains,  unless  it  be  satisfactorily  proved  which  of  them 
Avere  brought  in  marriage,  or  have  been  given  or  inherited  sepa- 
rately, and  the  community  property  is  divided  into  two  equal 
portions  between  the  husband  and  wife,  or  between  their  heirs ; 
the  gains  are  equally  divided,  although  one  brought  in  marriage 
more  than  the  other,  or  even  where  one  brought  nothing  at  all, 
including  the  fruits  hanging  by  the  roots  on  the  hereditary  or 
proper  lands,  and  the  young  of  cattle  yet  in  gestation,  but  not  the 
fruits  of  the  paraphernal  effects  reserved  to  herself  by  the  wiie. 
The  wife  and  her  heirs  and  assigns  may  exonerate  themselves 
from  the  debts  contracted  during  the  marriage  by  renouncing 
the  gains,  unless  the  wife  took  an  active  concern  in  the  effects  of 
the  community.  But  she  must  make  an  inventory,  and  renounce 
within  a  proper  time  ;  and  if  she,  being  above  the  age  of  major- 
ity, permit  judgment  to  pass  against  her  as  a  partner,  she  loses 
the  power  of  renouncing.  If  she  die  before  making  the  inventory, 
the  heirs  shall  be  allowed  another  term  of  equal  length,  and 
thirty  days  in  addition  thereto,  to  deliberate.  Creditors  of  the  wife 
may  attack  the  renunciation,  if  made  to  defraud  them,  and  accept 
the  community  of  gains  in  their  own  names. 

1  Civ.  Code,  1870,  art.  2309  et  seq. 


§  122  COMMUNITY    PKOPEIITY.  279 

The  widow,  whether  she  accept  or  renounce,  has  the  right,  dur- 
ing the  delay  granted  her  to  deliberate,  to  receive  her  reasonable 
maintenance  and  that  of  her  servants  out  of  the  provisions  in 
store,  and  if  there  be  none,  to  borrow  on  account  of  the  common 
stock  ;  and  she  owes  no  rent  during  such  term  for  a  house  inhab- 
ited by  her,  belonging  to  the  community  or  to  the  heirs  of  the 
husband,  and  if  such  house  was  rented,  the  rent  is  payable  out  of 
the  common  fund. 

In  California,  upon  the  death  of  the  wife  the  entire  community 
property,  without  administratioii,  belongs  to  the  surviving  hus- 
band, except  such  portion  thereof  as  may  have  been  Under  Code  of 
set  apart  to  her  by  judicial  decree,  which  is  subject  to  ^'^i'^"™'*- 
her  testamentary  disposition,  and  in  the  absence  thereof  goes 
to  her  descendants  or  heirs  exclusive  of  the  husband.  Upon 
the  death  of  the  husband,  one  half  of  the  community  property 
goes  to  the  surviving  wife,  and  the  other  half  to  his  devisees 
or  heirs,  subject  to  debts,  family  allowance,  and  expenses  of 
administration.^ 

In  Texas  the  property  owned  before  marriage  by  either  husband 
or  wife,  or  acquired  during  coverture  by  gift,  devise,  or  descent, 
together  with  all  the  increase  of  lands  (and  formerly 
of  slaves)  so  acquired,  are  his  or  her  separate  prop- 
erty ;  but  all  property  acquired  by  either  husband  or  wife  during 
coverture,  except  in  the  manner  aforesaid,  is  the  common  prop- 
erty of  the  husband  and  wife,  and  during  coverture  may  be  dis- 
posed of  by  the  husband,  and  is  liable  for  the  debts  of  the  husband 
and  for  the  debts  of  the  wife  contracted  during  the  marriage  for 
necessaries.  Upon  the  dissolution  of  the  marriage  by  death,  the 
remainder  of  the  common  property  goes  to  the  survivor,  if  the 
deceased  left  no  children,  but  if  there  be  a  child  or  children  of 
the  deceased,  one  half  shall  go  to  the  survivor,  and  the  other  half 
to  such  child  or  children.  It  is  not  necessary  for  the  surviving 
husband  to  administer  upon  the  community  property,  but  he  must 
file  a  full,  fair,  and  complete  inventory  and  appraisement  of  all  the 
community  ])roperty,  and  keep  a  fair  and  full  account  of  all  ex- 
clianges,  sales,  and  other  disposition  of  the  community  property, 
and  uj)()n  final  partition  account  to  the  legal  heirs  of  his  wife  for 
their  interest  in  the  community,  and  the  increase  and  profits  of 
the  same,  in  default  of  such  inventory,  and.  in  default  of  bond, 
1  Civ.  Code,  §§  1401,  1402. 


280  ESTATES    OF    DOWER    AND    CURTESY.  §  122 

when  required,  administration  may  be  granted  as  in  other  cases. 
The  same  right  is  accorded  to  a  surviving  wife,  until  she  marry 
again,  in  which  case  there  must  be  administration.^ 

In  Nevada  the  community  property  is  defined  like  that  in 
Texas  ;2  the  wife  is,  however,  required  to  file  a  full  and  complete 
inventory  of  her  separate  property  in  the  office  of  the 
recorder  of  the  county  in  which  she  resides,  and  if 
there  be  real  estate,  also  in  the  counties  in  which  the  same  lies, 
in  default  of  which  such  property  is  prima  facie  not  her  sep- 
arate property.  The  husband  controls  the  community  property, 
the  wife  her  separate  property.  There  is  neither  dower  nor  cur- 
tesy ;  but  on  the  death  of  the  wife  the  entire  community  property 
belongs,  without  administration,  to  the  surviving  husband,  and 
on  the  death  of  the  husband  one  half  of  the  community  property 
goes  to  the  surviving  wife,  and  the  other  half  to  his  devisees  or 
heirs,  subject  to  his  debts,  the  family  allowance,  and  expenses  of 
administration. 

1  Pasch.  Ann.  Dig.,  art.  4641  a  seq. ;  2  Comp.  L.  Nev.  1873,  §  151  et  seq. 

Kev.  St.  1888,  §  2851  et  seq. 


§  123  DISSOLUTION   OF   PARTNEliSUlP   BY   DEATH.  281 


CHAPTER    XII. 

ESTATES   OF    DECEASED    PARTNERS. 

§  123.    Dissolution  of  the  Partnership  by  the  Death  of  one  of  its 
Members.  —  Tlic  death  ol"  any  member  of  a  linn  operates  its  disso- 
lution as  to  allji  unless  by  the  articles  of  copartner-  Death  of  one 
ship  or  other  agreement  between  the"  partners  it  is  ^X-"s  nfe"' 
otherwise  stipulated.^     In  the  absence  of  an  agree-  panuersi.ip. 
ment  of  all  the  partners,  the  executors  of  a  deceased  partner  have 
no  right  to  become  partners  with  the  survivors  of  the  Administrator 
firm,  nor  in  any  manner  to  interfere  with  the  partner-  ^^^^  "o  demand 
ship  business,  save  to  represent  the  deceased  for  all  accounting. 
purposes  of  accounting ;  ^  but  a  testator  may  by  his  will  so  direct 
the  continuance  of  the  partnership  after  his  death,  Testator  may 
that  the  whole  estate  shall  be  liable  for  the  post-mor-  ^'^^H  X^'''' 
tuary  debts,  or  only  to  the  amount  of  his  actual  inter-  partnership, 
est  in  the  partnership  debts  at  his  decease.^     It  has  been  held  in 
England,^  and  in  some  instances  in  the  United  States,^  ^^^^^  ^^  ^^^j^^ 
that  a  court  of  equity  will  authorize  the  administrator  m^^v  direct 

'■       ''  _      _       continuance. 

of  a  deceased  partner  to  continue  the  partnership  m 

1  Ames  V.  Downing,  1  Bradf.  321,  325,  Miller  v.  Jones,  30  111.  54,  60,  on  the  rela- 
with  numerous  authorities;  Knapp  v.  tive  rights  and  duties  of  the  administrator 
McBride,  7  Ala.  19,28;  Jenness  v.  Carle-  of  a  deceased  partner  and  the  surviving 
ton,  40  Mich.  343;  2  Lindl.  on  Part.  1044  ;  partners;  al.so  McKean  y.  Vick,  108  111. 
1  Coll.  on  Part.  §  164  ;  Story  on  Part.  §  5;  373,  377,  showing  that  it  is  the  duty  of 
Hoard  v.  Clum,  31  Minn.  186.  the  administrator  of  the  deceased  partner 

2  Story  on  Part.  §319«;  Scholefield  to  compel  the  surviving  partner  to  settle 
17.  Eichelijerger,  7  Pet.  586,  594  ;  Laugh-  up  the  partnersliip  business  without  de- 
lin  V.  Lorenz,  48  Pa.  St.  275,  282;  Gralz  lay.  To  same  effect:  Gwynne  v.  Estes, 
V.  Bayard,   11  S.  &  R.   41  ;    Edwards  v.  14  Lea,  662,  676. 

Th()mas,66Mo.  468,  481  ;  Espy  !-.  Comer,  *  Story  on  Part.  §319rr;   Burwell  v. 

76  Ala.  501,  503 ;  Leaf's  Appeal,  105  Pa.  Cawood,  2  How.  560,  577  ;  Davis  r.  (^hris- 

St.  505,  513.  tian,    15  Gratt.   11;    Exchange  Bank  v. 

8  "  And,  unless  restrained  by  special  Tracy.  77  Mo.  594,  599. 

agreement,  tiiey  have  the  power,  by  in-  ^  Thompson    v.    Brown,  4  John.  Cli. 

stituting  a  suit  in  chancer}',  to  have  the  619,  citing  Montagu  on  Part.  187  ;  Sayer 

affairs  of  the  partnership  wound  up  in  a  v.  Bennett,  and  Barker  v.  Parker,  1  T.  U. 

manner  which  is  generally  ruinous  to  the  295. 

other  partners  " :    2  Coll.  on  Part.  §  623,  *<  Intimation    by  Cliancellor    Kent    in 

p.  950.     See  remarks  of  Lawrence,  J.,  in  Thompson  v.  Brown,  suj>ra  ;    Powell   v. 


282  ESTATES    OF    DECEASED    PARTNERS. 


123 


belialf  of  an  infant  heir  ;  but  this  seems  a  dangerous  power,  per- 
ilous alike  to  the  administrator,  who  is  personally  liable  for  debts 
incurred  in  the  prosecution  of  the  business,  and  the  beneficiaries 
of  the  estate,  whose  interests  may  be  jeoparded  by  the  vicissi- 
tudes of  trade,  although  the  administrator  may  exercise  the  utmost 
Liability  for  vigilancc  and  caution.  The  extent  of  the  liability  of 
debts  cmited         dcceascd  partner's  estate  for  debts  contracted  after 

after  testator  s  ^ 

death.  ^ig  death  on  behalf  of  the  partnership  will  in  all  cases 

depend  upon  the  terms  of  the  agreement  in  virtue  of  which  it  is 
continued ;  ^  and  while  it  is  clear  that,  on  general  principles,  no 
limitation  of  the  extent  of  his  assets  to  be  employed  in  the  part- 
nership business  can  affect  the  rights  of  creditors  existing  at  the 
time  of  his  death,^  it  is  equally  clear  that  only  the  most  unambig- 
uous language,  showing  the  positive  intention  of  the  testator  to 
render  his  general  assets  liable  for  debts  contracted  after  his 
death,  can  justify  the  extension  of  the  liability  of  his  estate  be- 
yond the  actual  fund  employed  in  the  partnership  at  the  time  of 
his  death.^ 

The  continuation  of  the  partnership  after  the  testator's  death, 
in  pursuance  of  the  directions  in  the  will,  has  the  effect  of  cre- 
Continuance  ating  a  ucw  partnership,  of  which  the  survivors  and 
under  will         executors  of  the  deceased  partner  are  the  members  ; 

creates  new  ^ 

partnership.       ^ud  Creditors  of  this  new  firm  have  no  claim  upon  the 

North,  3  Ind.  392,  .395,  citing  as  authority  Tomkins,  18  S.  C.  1,  24 ;  In  re  Clap,  2 

the   case   of   Thompson   v.   Brown,   and  Low.  168. 

holding  that  a  probate  court,  by  virtue  ^  Story,  J.,  in  Burwell  v.  Cawood,  2 

of  its  equity  powers,  may  authorize  the  How.  560,   577;    Jacquin  v.  Buisson,  U 

administrator  of  a  deceased   partner  to  How.   Pr.  385,  389 ;  Brasfield  v.  French, 

carry  on  the  partnership  business  in  be-  59  Miss.  632,  636;   In  re  Clap,  2  Low. 

half  of  an  infant  heir.  168  ;    Smith  v.  Ayer,  101  U.  S.  320,  330. 

1  As  to  the  difference  in  the  rights  of  In  Hart  v.  Anger,  38  La.  An.  341,  a 
creditors  of  a  partnership  directed  to  be  clause  in  the  partnership  articles  that 
continued  l)y  a  testator's  will,  and  of  one  "  in  the  event  of  the  death  of  either  of 
continued  in  virtue  of  a  partnership  con-  the  parties  to  tiiis  act,  it  is  to  be  optional 
tract,  see  Blodgett  v.  American  National  with  the  survivor  whether  said  copurt- 
Bank,  49  Conn.  9,  23  ;  dictum  of  John-  nership  shall  continue  or  not,"  was  held 
son,  J.,  in  Scholefield  v.  Eichelberger,  not  to  be  enforceable.  In  England  an 
7  Pet.  586,  594  ;  Davis  v.  Christian,  15  executrix,  who  was  directed  to  carry  on 
Gratt.  11,  32  et  seq.  Where  the  pro-  her  testator's  partnership  and  exceeded 
vision  in  the  partnership  article  is  simply  her  authority  by  employing  assets  therein 
that  the  deceased  partner's  capital  shall  to  an  extent  not  warranted  by  the  will, 
remain  in  the  business,  the  executor  is  was  allowed,  upon  her  and  the  surviving 
not  admitted  into  the  management  of  the  partner's  bankruptcy,  to  prove  for  the 
business :  Wild  v.  Davenport,  48  N.  J.  L.  excess  so  employed  under  their  commis- 
129   137.  sion  :  Ex  parte  Richardson,  Buck's  Cas. 

2  2  Coll.  on  Part.  §  618  ;   Tomkins  t;.  in  Bankr.  202,  209. 


§1:24  POWERS   OF    SURVIVING    PARTNERS.  283 

general  assets  of  the  testator,  but  only  u[)uii  sueh  assets  as  are 
directed  by  the  will  to  be  therein  employed.^  And  in  this  new 
firm  the  executor  pledges  his  own  responsibility  to  the  creditors, 
although  he  carries  on  the  business  not  for  his  own  benelit,  but 
only  for  the  benefit  of  children  or  legatees  of  the  testator.^  Hence 
it  must  be  optional  with  the  executor,  even  where  an  Executor  may 

,  ..  iiji  Mij.  !•  i.  refuse  to  con- 

apparent  duty  is  imposed  by  the  will,  to  refuse  to  con-  4;,,^^^.  partner- 
nect  himself  with  the  business,  and  with  still  greater  ^'''P- 
reason  in  the  case  of  an  administrator.^  If  he  carries  out  the 
request  of  the  testator  in  continuing  his  business  after  his  death, 
it  is  to  be  conducted  in  the  manner  in  which  the  testator  con- 
ducted it  ;  and  the  general  rule,  that  if  an  executor  sell  on  credit 
he  must  take  security  for  the  effects  sold,  does  not  apply  to  sales 
made  in  the  course  of  such  business.* 

§  124.   Powers  and  Liabilities  of  Surviving  Partners.  —  Upon  the 
dissolution  of  a  firm  by  the  death  of  one  of  its  members,  the  sur- 
vivors are,  at  common  law,  alone  entitled  to  sue  and  surviving  part- 
liable  to  be  sued  in  respect  of  debts  owing  to  or  by  ^^^l  H^f^^^ 
the  firm.5    They  have  the  legal  right  to  the  possession  ^ebts. 
and  disposition  of  all  partnership  effects,  for  the  pur-  Le^ai  title  to 
pose  of  paying  the  debts  of  the  firm  and  distributing  ^!! Jli^^-iyiJg 
the  residue  to  those  entitled.^    They  become,  in  equity,  pawners. 

1  2  Coll.  on  Part.  §§  019,  621 ;  Pitkin  zen's  M.  Ins.  Co.  v.  Ligon,  50  Miss.  305, 
V.  Pitkin,  7  Conn.  307,  311  ;  Stanwood  v.  3U;  Wild  v.  Davenport,  48  N.  J.  L.  129. 
Owen,  14  Gray,  195 ;  Vincent  u.  Martin,  ^  Edgar    v.   Cook,  4    Ala.   588,   590; 
79  Ala.  540,  544.  Jacquin  v.  Buisson,  11  How.  Pr.  385,  388  ; 

2  2  Coll.  on  Part.  §§(521,622,  citing  Gar-  Louisiana  Bank  r.  Kenner,  1  La.  384. 
land  ex  parte,  in  which  Lnril  Eldon  says  Berry  v.  Folkes,  60  Miss.  576,  610  et  seq.; 
(referring  to  an  executor  carrying  on  the  and  a  reasonable  time  within  wliich  to 
partnership  business  under  direction  of  elect  is  given  :  Wild  v.  Davenport,  48 
the  will)  that  "  the  case  of  the  executor  N.  J.  L  129,  136. 

is  very  hard.     He  becomes  liable,  as  per-  *  Cline's  Appeal,  106  Pa.  St.  617. 

sonnlly  responsible,  to  the  extent  of  all  ^  2  Coll.  on  Part.  §  623  ;  Daby  r.  Erics- 

hisown  property;  also  in  his  person,  and  son,  45  N.  Y.  786,  790;  Murray  v.  Miim- 

as    he    may   be   proceeded    against  as  a  ford,  6    Cow.  441 ;   Voorhies  v.  Baxter, 

bankrupt,    though    he   is   but   a   trustee.  1  Abb.  Pr.  43 ;  Osgood  v.  Spencer,  2  H. 

But   he  places  himself  in  that  situation  &  G.  133 ;  Walker  v.  Galbreath,  3  Head, 

by   his  own  choice,  judging  for  himself  315;  Roys  v.  Vilas,  18  Wis.  169,  173. 

whetlier  it  is  fit  and  safe  to  enter  into  *>  Hanna  i'.  Wray,  77  Pa.  St.  27  ;  An- 

that  situation,  and  contract  that  sort  of  drews  v.  Brown.  21  Ala.  437;    Tillotson 

responsibility."     Wightman  v.  Townroe,  i>.  Tillotson,  34  Conn.  335,  358;  Territory 

1    .Alaule  &  Sel.  412  (in  this  case,  how-  v.  Redding,  1  Fla.  242;  Case  r.  Abeel,  1 

ever  the  executor  bad  no  authority  under  Pai.  393,  398;  Marlatt  r.  Scantland,   19 

the    will   to   carry  on   the   partnership);  Ark.  443,  445;   Gray  v.  Palmer,  9  Cal. 

Alsop  V.  Mather,  8  Conn.  584,  587  ;  Ciii-  616 ;  Holland  v.  Fuller,  13  Ind.  195,  199; 


284  ESTATES   OF   DECEASED    PARTNERS.  §    124 

In  trust  to  pay  trustees,  and  will  be  held  liable  as  such  for  any  conver- 
dLrlbute.  sion  to  their  own  use  of  the  partnership  funds  or  prop- 
erty in  their  hands ;  ^  and  if  they  continue  the  trade  or  business 
Continuation  of  the  partnership  with  the  partnership  stock,  it  is  at 
of  partnership    ^j    j    ^^j^  j-jg^j  ^nd  thcv  will  bc  liable,  at  the  option  of 

business  at  t  j 

their  own  risk,  the  representatives  of  the  deceased  partner,  to  account 
Representa-       f^j,  ^he  profits  made  thereby,  or  to  be  charged  with 

tivGS  niiiv  QG- 

mand  interest,  interest  upou  the  deceased  partner's  share  of  the  sur- 
profit^'.^ "  plus,  besides  bearing  all  the  losses  ;2  but,  except  under 

particular  circumstances,  the  party  having  the  choice  cannot 
elect  the  interest  for  one  period  and  the  profits  for  another,  but 
must  elect  to  take  one  or  the  other  for  the  whole  period.^ 
And  if  the  profits  are  claimed,  bad  debts  must  also  be  de- 
ducted ;  and  if  the  continuance  prove  beneficial  to  the  parties, 
Surviving  part-  the  Surviving  partner  should  receive  a  reasonable 
nergeneraiiy      allowaucc   for  his  skill  and    industry  in  conducting 

entitled  to  no  '' 

compensation,  the  busincss,*  although  usually  a  surviving  partner  is 
not  allowed  compensation  for  winding  up  the  partnership  busi- 
ness,^ unless  the  services  rendered  are  extraordinary  and  perplex- 
ing in  their  nature,  so  as  to  justify  an  exception  to  the  general 
rule,^  or  stipulated  in  the  articles  of  copartnership.^  The  whole 
transaction  should  be  adopted  or  repudiated.^  If,  however,  the 
business  is  carried  on  by  the  survivors  with  the  assent 
only  profits^,  if  of  the  cxccutor  or  administrator  of  the  deceased  part- 
tiiey  consent.  ^^^^  ^^^^  survivors  are  liable  for  the  profits  only,  and 
if  a  loss  transpires,  they  are  not  liable  for  either  unless  there  was 

Barry  v.  Briggs,  22  Mich.  201,  206;  Dwi-  <  Griggs  v.   Clark,  23  Cal.  427,  430; 

nel  V.  Stone,  30  Me.  384,  386  ;  Evans  v.  see  also  O'Reilly  v.  Brady,  28  Ala.  530, 

Evans,  9  Paige,   178;    Heath   v.  Waters,  535;  Vanduzer  y.  McMillan,  87  Ga.  299, 

40  Mich.  457;    Little  v.  McPherson,  76  311;   Schenkl  v.  Dana,  118  Mass.  236; 

Ala.    552,  556;   Grim's  Appeal,  105  Pa.  Freeman  y.  Freeman,  142  Mass.  98. 
St.  375,  381  ;   Freeman  v.  Freeman,  186  &  Beatty   v.   Wray,   19   Pa.    St.    516  ; 

Mass.  260,  263;  Anderson  v.  Ackerman,  Lonmis  v.  Armstrong,  49  Mich.  521,  525; 

88  Ind.  481,  485.  Cooper  v.  Reid,  2  Hill  Ch.  (S.  C)  549; 

1  Renfrow    v.    Pearce,    68    111.    125;  Cooper  r.  Merrihew,  Riley  Eq.  166;  Starr 

Costlev  r.  Towles,  46  Ala.  660 ;  Farley  y.  v.   Case,   59  Iowa,  491,  503;    O'Neill  v. 

Moog,"79  Ala.  148.  Puff,  11  Phila.  244,  246  ;  Brown's  Appeal, 

^  Story  on    Part.   §   343  ;    Fithian   u.  89  Pa.  St.  139  ;  Piper  v.  Smith,  1  Head, 

Jones,  12  Phil.  201  ;  Oliver  r.  Forrester,  93;  Gregory  v.  Menefee,  83  Mo.  418.     In 

96  111.  315,  321   (see  dissenting   opinion,  Missouri  the  statute  now  makes  provision 

325)  ;    Brown's   Appeal,  89  Pa.  St.  139,  for  compensation :  Laws,  1885,  p  25. 
147  ;    Freeman  v.  Freeman,  142  Mass.  98  ;  ^  jjite  v.  Hite,  1  B.  Mon.  177,  179. 

Klotz  V.  Macready,  39  La.  An.  638.  ^  Sangston  v.  Hack,  52  Md   173,  199. 

3  Goodburn  v.  Stevens,  1  Md.  Ch.  420,  »  Washburn  v.  Goodman,  17  Pick.  519, 

430.  526. 


§  124  POWERS   OF   SURVIVING   PARTNERS.  285 

negligence  or  carelessness  in  the  management  of  the  business. ^ 
Nor  do  the  executors,  who  allow  the  share  of  the  capi-  Rgpresenta- 
tal  of  their  testator  to  remain  in  and  be  employed  in  t'ves  not  liable 

3.S  pm  tncrs  lor 

the  business  of  the  partnership  after  his  death,  accord-  penniuing  use 

•       ii  -n  J.1  J.      "^  Stock 

ing  to  the  testator's  mstruction  m  the  will  or  the  pai-t- 
nership  agreement,  thereby  become  liable  as  partners,  or  incur 
any  responsibility .^  And  since  the  liability  to  account  for  profits 
after  dissolution  rests  upon  the  exposure  of  the  stock  of  tiie  out- 
going partner  to  the  risks  of  the  new  business,  there  is  no  liability 
to  account  when  such  partner  has  withdrawn  as  much  or  more  than 
as  much  of  the  partnership  funds  as  he  is  entitled  to.^  If  the  busi- 
ness is  carried  on  with  the  consent  of  some  of  those  who  repre- 
sent the  interest  of  the  deceased  partner,  and  against  the  consent 
of  others,  the  earnings  are  to  be  divided  according  to  the  capital 
to  which  each  was  entitled,  after  deducting  such  share  of  them 
as  is  attributable  to  the  skill  and  services  of  the  surviving  part- 
ner,* if  there  are  no  circumstances  rendering  such  a  rule  unjust  or 
inapplicable. 

A  distinction  has  been  drawn,  with  respect  to  the  right  of  sur- 
viving partners,  between  property  or  effects  in  possession,  of 
which  the  personal  representatives  of  deceased  part-  distinction  be- 
ners  become  tenants  in  common  with  the  survivors,  ^^een  effects 

in  possession 

and  choses  in  action,  debts,  and  other  rights  of  action,  and  ciioses  in 

.    •  K       T->    j_  j_i  •       T        action. 

which  belong  to  the  surviving  partner.^  i3ut  this  dis- 
tinction is  indicative  of  very  slight,  if  any,  practical  difference : 
for  as  to  the  choses  in  action,  the  survivors  become  trustees  thereof, 
so  soon  as  they  recover  thereon  or  reduce  them  to  possession,  for 
the  benefit  of  the  partnership,  and  the  representatives  of  the 
deceased  partner  possess  in  equity  the  same  right  of  sharing  and 
participating  in  them  as  the  deceased  partner  himself  would  if 
living;^  and  as  to  their  right  to  the  effects  in  possession,  it  is 
sufficient  to  enable  them  to  wind  up  the  affairs  of  the  firm,  pay 
its  debts,  and  distribute  the  residue.     If  necessary  for  such  pur- 

1  Millard  v.  Ramsdell,  Harr.  (Mich.)  3  Hyde  v.  Easter,  4  Md.  Cli.  80,  84; 
Ch.  373,  394.  But  in  such  case,  the  ex-  Taylor  v.  Hutchison,  25  Gratt.  536, 
ecutor  or  administrator  ceases  to  have  a     548. 

lien  upon  the  property  as  against  subse-  *  Robinson  v.  Simmons,  15  N.  East.  R. 

quent  creditors  of  the  concern  :  Hoyt  v.  (Mas';.)  558,  563. 

Sprague,  13  Otto,  613,  628.                  '  5  gtory  on  Part.  §  346;  Wilson  v.  Soper, 

2  Richter  v.  Poppenhusen,  39  How.  Pr.  13  B.  Monr.  411,  413. 

82,  91  ;  Laughlin  v.  Lorenz,  48  Pa.  St.  275,  «  Story  on  Part.  §  346,  and  authori- 

282  ;  Avery  v.  Myers,  60  Miss.  367,  372.       ties. 


286  ESTATES   OF   DECEASED   PARTNERS.  §  125 

Smvivinji part-  posG,  thev  may  recover  the  partnership  property  even 

iiers  may  re-         '  ...  r-       i  i  i  i  i 

cover  from        from   thc   administrator   ot    the  deccasea    partner;^ 

administrator,  .  ^    ^  e  i  •  4^".2 

and  assifjii  and  they  may  assign  and  transfer  any  chose  in  action,'' 
eitylor  I'm--"  or  partnership  property  in  possession.^  Whether  in 
ment  of  debts,    paying  the  partnership  debts  the   surviving  partner 

Whether  sur-        ^    "^       ^      „  ^  ,.^^  ,,  •       i      11      i-rr 

vivinK  partner  may  prefer  one  creditor  over  anotlier,  is  held  dnicr- 
creaitoi^!""  ently  in  different  States.  The  common  law  right  to 
do  so  was  asserted  to  exist  in  Missouri ,4  until  the  statute  was 
enacted  requiring  payment  pro  rata  if  the  estate  is  insolvent,^ 
and  still  exists  in  some  other  States,^  but  is  emphatically  denied 
in  Colorado  "  and  Tennessee.^ 

The  executor  or  administrator  of  a  surviving  partner,  who  died 
with  partnership  effects  in  his  possession  while  engaged  in  settling 
Executor  or  the  partnership  business,  is  entitled  to  the  possession 
administrator     q£  g^gj^  effccts,  and  is  charged  with  the  duty  of  com- 

of  siirviviiifT  1  1      1    J 

partner  entitled  pleting  such  Settlement ;  and  he  cannot  be  precluded 

to  partnersliip      '^  °..  ,.  ,rji  •  ^  • 

effects.  from  receiving  compensation  out  ot  the  partnership 

funds  for  his  services  in  the  performance  of  this  duty.^ 

§  125.  Remedies  of  Partnership  Creditors  in  Equity.  — In  equity, 
and  under  the  statutes  of  most  of  the  States,  though  not  at  com- 
^^j^j  mon  law,  partnership  creditors  have  the  right,  if  the 
creditors  may  surviving  partner  is  insolvent,  to  compel  payment  of 
of  deMal^ed  ^  their  debts  out  of  the  deceased  partner's  estate  to  the 
partner,  ^^^^^  amount  of  their  demands.io    Story,  in  his  work  on 

1  Calvert  v.  Marlow,  18  Ala  67,  71 ;  »  Loeschigk  v.  Hatfield,  51  N.  Y.  660; 
Dwinel  v.  Stone,  30  Me.  384.  But  the  Bartlett  v.  Parks,  1  Cush.  82 ;  Rose  v. 
surviving  partner  must  prove  the  debt,      Gunn,  79  Ala.  411,415. 

like  any  other  creditor  of  the  deceased,  *  Collier  v.  Cairns,  6  Mo.  App.  188, 
and  has  no  preference  over  other  cred-  190  ;  Denny  v.  Turner,  2  Mo.  App.  52,  55. 
itors  :  Bird  r.  Bird,  77  Me.  499.  See  also  ^  Laws,  1883,  p.  22. 
Wilby  V.  Phinney,  15  Mass.  Ill,  118,  and  6  Ely  v.  Horine,  5  Dana,  398;  Loes- 
Johnson  v.  Ames,  6  Pick.  330.  Where  chigk  y.  Hatfield,  s»;ira  ,•  Egberts  r.  Wood, 
partnership  property  was  on  dissolution  3  Pai.  517.  But  it  was  lately  lield  in 
left  with  one  of  the  members,  who  died.  New  York,  that  an  assignment  for  the 
and  the  e.xecutor  converted  it  and  placed  benefit  of  creditors,  in  which  preferences 
the  proceeds  to  the  credit  of  the  estate,  are  created,  cannot  be  made  without  tiie 
the  other  partners  may  recover  from  the  assent  of  the  representatives  of  the  de- 
estate  their  share  of  the  proceeds  only  ;  ceased  partner  :  Nelson  v.  Tenney,  36 
if  the  act  of  conversion  was  tortious  or  Hun,  327. 

negligent,  the  executor  is  personally  liable  '  Salsbury  v.  Ellison,  7  Col.  167,  169. 

for    anv    sum    which   the   property   was  ^  Parcroft  v.  Snodgrass,  1  Coldw.  430, 

worth   in   excess  of   the   price  realized :  440 ;  Anderson  v.  Norton,  15  Lea,  14,  28. 
Bradley  v.  Brigham,  144  Mass.  181.  ^  Dayton   v.  Bartlett,  38  Oh.  St.  357, 

2  Egberts  u.  Wood,  3  Pai.  517  ;  Peyton  361. 

V.  Stratton,  7  Gratt.  880,  384  ;  French  v.         1°  2  Coll.  on  Part.  §  611. 
Lovejuy,  r2N.  H.458,  401.  


§  125  PARTNERSHIP   CREDITORS    IN   EQUITY.  287 

Partnorsliip,  says  that  formerly  recourse  couLl  be  had  against  the 
estate  of  the  deceased  partner  only  when  the  survivor 
was  insolvent  or  bankrui)t,  but  that  this  doctrine  has  survhmg'part- 
been  overturned,  and  partnership  creditors  may  now  ner  is  insolvent 
proceed  against  the  estate  of  the  deceased  partner  and 
enforce  full  payment  of  their  demands,  witliout  waiting  until  the 
partnership  affairs  are  wound  up.^  Such  is  the  law  in  many 
States  under  their  statutes,  treating  partnership  debts  as  Ijoth 
joint  and  several;  for  instance,  in  Alabama,-  Arkansas,-^  Connecti- 
cut,* Florida,^  Indiana,^  Illinois,^  lowa,^  Kansas,^  Mississippi,^'' 
Missouri,!!  New  Jersey ,^2  New  Hampshire,!^  Pennsylvania,^*  Ten- 
nessee,!^  and  Texas.^*^  But  in  many  others  it  is  still  necessary 
to  aver  and  prove  the  insolvency  of  the  surviving  partner  before 
the  estate  of  the  deceased  can  be  held  liable,  among  which  may 
be  reckoned  Delaware,^"  Georgia,!^  Louisiana,!^  Nebraska,2o  New 
Jersey,^!  New  York,^^  Ohio,^^  Virginia,^*  Wisconsin,^^  and,  accord- 
ing to  some  old  cases,  North  Carolina -^  and  South  Carolina.-" 
This  right  is  self-evidently  confined  to  debts  of  the  partnership 
existing  at  the  time  of  the  death ;  for  it  has  already  been  shown,^^ 
that  even  where  by  the  terras  of  the  will  of  the  deceased,  or  by 
force  of  the  articles  of  copartnership,  the  business  is  continued  by 
the  survivors  together  with  the  executor  or  other  personal  repre- 
sentative, a  new  partnership  is  in  reality  formed,  the  liabilities  of 

1  Dogffett  V.    Dill,  108   111.  560,  565,  i3  Bowker  ;;.  Smith,  48  N.  H.  Ill,  118. 
quoting  Story  on  Part.  §  362,  and  many  i^  Moores'  Appeals,  34  Pa.  St.  411,412. 
English  ami  American  authorities;  Nel-  ^^  Saunders  v.  Wilder,  2  Head,  577. 
son  V.  Hill,  5  How.  127,  133,  approved  in  lo  Qaut  v.  Reed,  24  Tex.  46,  54. 
Lewis  V.  United  States,  2  Otto,  618,  622.  "  Currey  v.  Warrington,  5  Harr.  147. 

2  Waldron  v.  Simmons,  28  Ala.  629  ;  is  Bennett  v.  Woolfolk,  15  Ga.  213,  221. 
Rose  V.  Gunn,  79  Ala.  411.  "  Dyer    v.    Drew,    14    La.    An.    657  ; 

3  McLain  v.  Carson,  4  Ark.  164,  166.  Jones  v.  Caperton,  15  La.  An.  475. 

*  Camp  !.'.  Grant,  21  Conn.  41.  2»  Leach    v.    Milhurn,    14    Neb.    106; 

6  Fillyau  v.  Laverty,  3  Fla.  72.  101.  Bowen  v.  Crow,  16  Neb.  5-56. 

6  Hardy  v.  Overman,  36  Ind.  549.  '■^^  Buckingham  v.  Ludlum,  37  N.  J.  Eq. 

7  Silverman  v.  Chase,  90  111.   37,  41,  137;  Wisham  i:  Lippincott,  9  N.  J.  Eq. 
followed  and  approved  in  Doggett  v.  Dill,  353. 

supra.  ^  "  Voorhis  v.  Childs,  17  N.  Y.  354  ;  Ha- 

8  Ryerson  v.   Hendrie,  22  Iowa,  480,      mersley  v.  Lambert,  2  John.  Ch.  508. 
Dillon,  J.,  dissenting,  484.  23  Horsey  r.  Heath,  5  Oh.  .353,  355. 

9  Stout  V.  Baker,  32  Kans.  11-3.  24  gale  v.  Dishman,  3  Leigh,  548,  551. 

10  Miller  v.  Northern    Bank,   34  Miss.         25  Sherman  v.  Kreul,  42  Wis.  33,  38. 
412,416;  Irby  u.  Graham.  46  Miss.  425;         26  Burgwin    v.    Hostler,    1    Tayl.    75 
Freeman  v.  Stewart,  41  Miss.  138,  141.  (2d  ed.). 

11  Griffin  v.  Samuel,  6  Mo.  50.  2?  phUson  v.  Bampfield,  1  Brev.  202. 

12  Wisham  v.  Lippincott,  9  N.  J.  Eq.         28  ^„fe,  §  123. 
353 ;  but  see  infra. 


288  ESTATES   OF   DECEASED    PARTNERS.  §  126 

which  arc  entirely  distinct  from  those  of  the  old  firm.  No  notice 
of  the  dissolution  of  the  firm  by  the  death  of  one  of  its  m(!nibers 
is  necessary  to  discharge  the  estate  of  the  decedent  from  liability 
for  any  subsequent  transaction,  except,  perhaps,  where  the  surviv- 
ing partners,  or  one  of  them,  are  executors  of  the  deceased  part- 
ner, and  the  business  is  continued  under  the  original  articles  of 
copartnership.^  And  so  the  same  acts  of  the  creditor  which 
operate  in  discharge  of  the  surviving  or  of  a  retiring  partner  will 
be  equally  effective  to  discharge  a  deceased  partner's  estate.^ 

As  the  personal  representatives  of  a  deceased  partner  may  call 
on  the  survivors  for  an  account  of  the  partnership  affairs,^  so 
the  creditors  of  the  partnership  may  proceed  against 
proceed  agaiiist  the  survivors,  as  well  as  against  the  representatives 
esLte  oVthe  "^  of  the  deccascd,  in  order  to  obtain  payment  of  their 
deceased  part-    ^^^^  ^^^^  ^f  ^j^^  asscts  of  the  dcccascd  partner ;   but 

ner.  '■ 

the  separate  creditors,  legatees,  and  next  of  kin  of  the 
deceased  partner  have  no  locus  standi  against  the  surviving  part- 
ner, but  only  against  the  executors  or  administrators  of  the 
deceased,  unless  there  be  collusion  between  these  persons,  or  cir- 
cumstances exist  which  prevent  the  representatives  themselves 
from  obtaining  a  decree  for  an  accounting.^  If  the  administrator 
fails  to  compel  a  speedy  accounting  by  the  surviving  partner,  he 
is  himself  guilty  of  laches.^  It  is  to  be  remembered,  in  connection 
with  this  question,  that,  as  a  general  rule,  partnership  creditors 
have  a  primary  claim  upon  partnership  assets,  to  the  exclusion  of 
the  creditors  of  individual  partners,  until  the  partnership  debts 
are  paid,  and  vice  versa.^ 

§  126.  Effect  of  Dissolution  on  Partnership  Real  Estate.  —  It  is 
now  well  recognized,  that  as  between  copartners  there  is  in  reality 
Real  estate  ^0  difference  whether  the  partnership  property  held 
^IrsoLh  ^*^^  ^^""^  purposes  of  trade  or  business  consists  of  per- 

in  equity.  soual  or  real  estate,  or  of  both,  so  far  as  their  ultimate 

1  Story  on  Part.  §  34.3,  and  note  citing  2  2  Coll.  on  Part.  §  614,  and  authori- 
Vulliamy  v.  Noble,  3  Mer.  593,  614  ;  Coll.  ties, 
on  Part.  §§  24,  613;    Marlett  v.  Jackman,  ^  Ame^  §  123. 
3  Allen,  287,  290;  Price  v.  Mathews,  14  *  Coll.  on  Part.  §§  288,  348. 
La.  An.  11.     See  Dean  w.  Plunkett,  136  s  McKean  v.  Vick,  108  111.  373 ;   Bar- 
Mass.  195,  where  the  surviving  partner  croft  v.  Snodgrass,  1  Coldw.  441  ;  Gwynne 
carried    on    the   business    as    agent    of  v.  Estes,  14  Lea,  662,  676. 
the  new  firm  under  the  old  name,  and  ^  gtory  on  Part.  §  363;  Keese  v.  Cole- 
the  firm  was  held  liable  for  the  agent's  man,  72  Ga.  658  ;  Warren  v.  Farmer,  100 
contracts  Ind.  593,  595 ;  Farley  v.  Moog,  79  Ala.  148. 


§  126  PARTNERSHIP    REAL   ESTATE.  289 

rights  and  interests  are  concerned. ^  However  the  title  may  stand 
at  law,  real  estate  belonging  to  a  partnership  will  in  equity  be 
treated  like  its  personal  funds,  disposable  and  distributable  accord- 
ingly ;  and  the  parties  in  whose  names  it  stands,  as  owners  of 
the  legal  title,  will  be  held  to  be  trustees  of  the  part-  „ 

o  '  ...       No  survivor- 

nership,  accountable  accordinirlv.    Hence  in  equity,  in  ship  in  real 

.  '     ■  .  .  estate  on  dis- 

ease ot  the  death  of  one  partner,  tliere  is  no  survivor-  solution  by 

ship  in  the  real  estate  of  the  partnership,  but  his  share 
will  go,  after  payment  of  partnership  debts,  to  his  proper  repre- 
sentatives ;  2  but  all  real  estate  purchased  with  partnership  funds 
for  the  use  of  the  firm,  and  employed  in  the  partnership  business, 
is  in  equity  regarded  as  assets  of  the  partnership,  and  will  be 
applied  to  the  liquidation  of  partnership  debts  in  preference  to 
the  debts  of  individual  members  of  the  firm.^     The  „,  , 

U  mow's  dower 

dower  interest  of  the  widow  of  a  deceased  partner  de-  in  partnersiiip 
pends  upon  the  contingency  whether  any  portion  of  the 
proceeds  of  sale  of  partnership  real  estate  remains  to  the  share 
of  her  deceased  husband  after  the  payment  of  all  the  partnership 
debts,  and  advances  made  by  the  other  partners  ;  hence  she  has 
no  claim  to  dower  in  the  lands  sold  or  mortgaged  by  the  firm, 
although  she  did  not  join  in  the  sale,  but  may  have  a  dower  inter- 
est in  the  balance  of  the  purchase  money  so  remaining,  which  is 
then  treated  as  real  estate.*     So  each  partner  has  an  equitable 

1  Story  on  Part.  §  92.  elaborate  opinion,   upon  a  thorongh  re- 

2  Story  on  Part.  §  92  ;  1  Coll.  on  Part,  view  of  the  American  authorities,  which 
§  115,  note,  p.  219;  Shanks  v.  Klein,  14  he  found  somewhat  conflicting,  and  was 
Otto,  18.  approved    by  the    New   York    Court   of 

3  Ross  V.  Henderson,  77  N.  C.  170,  Appeals  in  Collumb  v.  Read,  24  N.  Y. 
172;  Buchan  i;.  Sumner,  2  Barb.  Ch.  165,  505,  512.  Kice  v.  McMartin,  -39  Conn. 
200,  in  which  Chancellor  Walworth  for-  57-3,  575;  Carlisle  v.  Mulhern,  19  Mo.  56; 
mulates  the  rule  as  follows  :  Real  estate  Matthews  v.  Hunter,  67  Mo.  293,  295  ; 
purchased  with  partnership  funds,  or  for  Martin  v.  Morris,  62  Wis.  418,  427  ;  Espy 
the  use  of  the  firm,  is,  in  equity,  charge-  r.  Comer,  76  Ala.  .501  ;  Leaf's  Appeal, 
able  with  the  debts  of  the  partnership,  105  Pa.  St.  505;  Messer  v.  Messer,  59 
and  with  any  balance  which  ma}'  be  due  N.  H.  375,  377  ;  and  see  the  cases  of 
from  one  copartner  to  another  upon  the  Coles  v.  Coles,  15  Johns.  159,  Dyer  v. 
winding  up  of  the  affairs  of  the  firm  ;  Clark.  5  Met.  (]\Iass.)  562,  with  collection 
secondly,  as  between  the  personal  repre-  of  authorities  in  1  Am.  Lead.  Cas.  484 
sentatives  and  the  heirs  at  law  of  a  de-  et  sp(]. 

ceased  partner,  his  share  of  the  surplus  ■*  Howard    v.  Priest,    5   Met.    (Mass.) 

of  the  real  estate  of  the  copartnership,  582;    Husson  v.  Neil,  41  Ind    504,  510; 

which  remains  after  payment  of  its  debts  Loubat  v.  Nourse.  5  Fla.o50,  358  ;  Greene 

and  adjusting  all  the  equitable  claims  of  r.  Greene,  1  Ohio,  535,  542  ;  Sumner  v. 

the    different   members   of    the   firm    as  Hampson,  8  Ohio,  .328,  .364 ;  Dnhrin^  v. 

between    themselves,  is   treated   as    real  Duhring,  20  Mo.  174,  180  et  seq. ;   Kich- 

estate.     This  view  was  announced  in  an  ardsou   v.  Wyatt,   2    Desaus.  471,  482  ; 

VOL.  I.  — 19 


290  ESTATES   OF   DECEASED   PARTNERS.  §  127 

^    .      ,  interest  in  that  portion  of    the  legal  estate  held  by- 

Equity  of  part-  '■  .  1       /? 

ner  superior  to    the  otlicr,  until  all  the  debts  obligatory  on  the  firm, 

rights  of  heirs  including  advanccs  by  any  of  the  partners  to  the  firm, 
and  devisees.      ^^.^  ^^.^^  ^^^  ^j^^  rights   of  the   deceased   partner's 

widow,  legal  representatives,  heirs,  and  creditors  are  postponed  to 
such  payment.^  But  such  partnership  real  estate  as  may  not  be 
required  for  the  payment  of  partnership  debts  or  the  adjustment 
of  balances  between  the  partners  is,  in  the  settlement  of  the  estate 
of  a  deceased  partner,  generally,  at  least  in  cases  where  the  part- 
ners have  not  by  either  an  express  or  implied  agreement  indi- 
cated an  intention  to  convert  the  land  into  personal  estate,^  treated 
as  realty  ;  ^  although  in  some  cases,  both  in  England  and  Amer- 
ica, the  character  of  personalty,  once  attaching  to  such  property 
by  reason  of  having  been  purchased  with  partnership  funds  or 
used  for  partnership  purposes,  is  held  to  continue  until  final  dis- 
tribution.* Whether  an  agreement  to  buy  and  sell  lands  and 
share  in  the  profits  of  the  sale  converts  the  land  absolutely  into 
personalty,  has  been  held  both  ways.^ 

§  127.  Distribution  of  Partnership  Effects.  —  Upon  payment  of 
all  the  partnership  debts,  and  expenses  of  liquidation,  a  specific 
Specific  division  of  all  the  remaining  assets  may  be  made  be- 

division.  twccu  the  Surviving  partners  and  the  personal  repre- 

sentatives of  the  deceased  partner,  if  they  so  agree.^  But  each 
party  may,  in  the  absence  of  such  an  agreement,  and  where  the 

Gilbraith    v.   Gedge,   16   B.    Mon.   631  ;  Hale  v.  Plummer,  6  Ind.  121,  123 ;  Yeat- 

Wooidridge  v.   Wilkins,  3  How.  (Miss.)  man  v.  Woods,  6  Yerg.  20,  approved  in 

360,  371  et  seq.;  Cobble  v.  Tomlinson,  50  Piper  v.  Smith,  1  Head,  93,  97,  and  Wil- 

Ind.  550,5.54;  Simpson  v.  Leech,  80  III.  liamson   v.   Fcntain,  7   Baxt.   212,   214; 

286;  Brewer  v.  Browne,  68  Ala.  210,  213.  Espy  v.  Comer,  76  Ala.  501,  505  ;  Leafs 

1  Dyer  v.  Clark,  5  Met.  (Mass.)  562,  Appeal,  105  Pa.  St.  505;  Martin  v.  Morris, 
5Y5;  Shearer  v.  Paine,  12  Allen,  289;  62  Wis.  418 ;  Brewer  r.  Browne,  68  Ala. 
Pierce  v.  Trigg,  10  Leigh,  406,  421  et  seq. ;  210. 

but  see  on  this  point,  Bush  v.  Clark,  127  *  Ludlow  v.  Cooper,  4  Ohio  St.  1,  8 
Mass.  Ill,  as  to  the  distinction  drawn  in  et  seq.:  NicoU  r.  Ogden,  29  111  323;  Cos- 
Massachusetts  between  personalty  and  ter  r.  Clarke,  3  Edw.  Cli.  428;  Hoxie  v. 
real  estate,  post,  p  293,  note  8.  Carr,  I  Sumn.  17-3. 

2  As,  for  instance,  in  Davis  v.  Smith,  -^  Negatively  in  Mississippi :  Markham 
82  Ala.  198.  v.  Merrett,  supra  ;  affirmatively  in  Ohio  : 

3  Wilcox  V.  Wilcox,  13  Allen,  252  ;  Ludlow  i-.  Cooper,  4  Oh.  St.  1,  9 ;  New 
Dil worth  v.  Mayfield,  86  Miss.  40,  51  ;  York  :  Coster  v.  Clarke,  supra  ;  Iowa  : 
Buckley  v.  Buckley,  11  Barb.  43,  75;  Mallory  r.  Russell,  71  Iowa,  63. 
Buchan  v.  Sumner,  supra;  Wooldridge  v.  ^  Roys  v.  Vilas,  18  Wis.  169, 174  ;  Case 
Wilkins,  3  How.  (Miss.)  360,  371  et  seq.  ;  v.  Abeel,  1  Pai.  393,  398;  Ludlow  v. 
Goodburn  v.  Stevens,  5  Gill,  1,  2G;  Mark-  Cooper,  4  Oh.  St.  1;  Sage  v.  Woodin,  66 
ham  V.  Merrett,  7  How.  (Miss.)  437,  446;  N.  Y.  678,  581. 


§  127  DISTRIBUTION    OF   PARTNERSHIP   EFFECTS.  291 

partnership  contract  stipulates  no  division  in  a  different  manner, 
insist  on  a  sale  of  the  joint  stock  ;i  and  where  a  court  saie  of  joint 
of  equity  winds  up  the  concerns  of  a  partnership  it  is  '^^"'^^' 
usually  done  by  a  sale  of  the  property,  whether  real  or  personal, 
and  a  conversion  of  it  into  money  ;  ^  but  there  may  g^jg  may  be 
be  cases  in  which  the  peculiar  circumstances  wpuld  dispensed  with. 
make  a  sale  injurious,  and  where  the  true  interest  of  all  parties 
may  be  better  preserved  and  protected  without  it.'^    It  gaie  at  public 
seems  to  be  understood  that  a  sale  at  public  auction  is  *"^''o"- 
most  favored,  because  at  such  a  sale  all  interested  ])arties  may  be 
present,  and  bid  to  prevent  a  sacrifice  of  the  stock;  uut  no  conciu- 
but  there  is  no  conclusive  rule  upon  the  subject,  and  sive  mie  as  to 

'  ••  nietiiod  of  sale. 

the  circumstances  of  each  case  must  suggest  the  best 
course  to  be  adopted.'*  The  representatives  of  the  deceased  part- 
ner may  sell  the  interest  of  the  latter  to  third  persons,  or  to  the 
survivor,  if  the  sale  is  fair  and  honest ;  ^  but  not  where  the  sur- 
viving partner  is  also  executor  or  administrator  of  the  deceased 
partner,*'  The  surviving  partner  cannot  shield  himself  from 
responsibility  for  the  true  ^  alue  of  partnership  property  bought 
secretly  and  indirectly  by  himself,  by  showing  that  the  sale  was 
under  judicial  authority  ;  nor  where  bidders  were  deterred  for  his 
benefit  from  bidding,  although  in  consequence  of  deceit  he  did 
not  obtain  the  proporty.'^  But  the  court  may,  upon  a  proper 
showing,  permit  the  surviving  partner  to  retain  the  assets  upon 
payment  of  their  full  value. ^ 

The  good  will  of  a  firm  dissolved  by  the  death  of  one  of  its 
members  has  often  a  marketable  value,  and  in  such  case  it  is  liable 
to  be  sold  for  the  benefit  of  all  the  partners,  like  any  Goodwill  an 
other  property  of  the  firm.     In  such  case  it  must  be  ^*^'^^" 

1  Freeman  v.  Freeman,  136  Mass.  2('!0.  *  Pars,  on  Part.  *52-5. 

-  3Kent  Com.  64;  Story  on  Part.  §.347;  *  Taylor  v.  Hutcliison,  25  Gratt.  ."i3fi. 
1  Coll.  on  Part.  §  331  ;  Gow  on  Part.'*2.34  ;  °  Case  v.  Abeel,  1  Pai.  393,  398 ;  Kim- 
Evans  n.  Evans,  9  Pai.  178,  181;  Sigour-  bnll  v.  Lincoln,  99  111.  578  (but  the  sur- 
ney  v.  Munn,  7  Conn.  11,  21;  Harper  y.  vivor  cannot  become  purchaser  at  liis  own 
Lamping,  33  Cal.  G41,  649  ;  Dickinson  ?».  sale  :  p.  585)  ;  see  Grim's  Appeal,  105  Pa. 
Dickinson,  29  Conn.  601  ;  Lyman  v.  Ly-  St.  375,  382. 

man,  2  Paine,  11,  39  et  srq.  Surviving  "  C-Ase  v.  Aheo\,  snjirn ;  Nelson  v.  Hay- 
partners  "  cannot  take  the  property  of  the  ner,  CG  111.  487,  493. 
firm  to  themselves  at  an  estimated  value  '  Klotz  v.  Macready,  39  La.  An.  638. 
without  the  consent  of  the  representatives  ^  Sheppard  v.  Boggs,  9  Neb.  257,  2G2. 
of  the  deceased  partner":  Ogden  v.  As-  This  course  is  in  many  cases  the  best  or 
tor,  4  Sandf.  311,  313,  834;  Freeman  v.  only  expedient  to  avert  serious  loss,  es- 
Freeman,  130  Mass.  260,  263.  pecially  of  the  value  of  good  will. 


292  ESTATES   OF   DECEASED   PARTNERS.  §  127 

taken  into  consideration  in  the  valuation  of  the  stock,  ^  and  the 
proceeds  of  its  sale  become  assets  for  the  payment  of  debts  or 
distribution  between  the  deceased  and  surviving  ])artnei's.  But  it 
is  not  always  either  valuable  or  salable.  It  is  described  as  the 
sum  whicli  a  person  would  be  willing  to  give  for  the  chance  of 
being  able  to  keep  the  trade  established  at  a  particular  place,^  or 
rather  it  is  the  price  to  be  paid  for  the  advantage  of  carrying  on 
business  either  on  the  premises  or  with  the  stock  of  the  old  firm, 
or  connected  therewith  by  name,  or  in  some  manner  attracting 
the  customers  of  the  old  to  the  new  business.  Upon  the  sale  of 
an  established  business,  its  good  will  has  obviously  a  marketable 
value ;  ^  but  this  depends  largely,  if  not  entirely,  on  the  absence 
of  competition  on  the  part  of  tliose  by  whom  the  business  has 
been  previously  carried  on.  Hence,  since  a  surviving  partner  is 
under  no  obligation  either  to  retire  from  business  merely  because 
the  partnership  is  dissolved,  or  to  carry  on  the  old  business  so  as 
to  preserve  its  good  will  until  the  final  winding  up  of  the  partner- 
ship affairs,^  its  market  value  is  often  destroyed  or  inconsider- 
able.^ So  too  the  sale  of  an  establishment  in  toto  will  carry  with 
it  the  good  will  to  the  purchaser ;  'Mf  a  lease,  the  property  of  a 
partnership,  be  sold,  the  good  will  passes  with  it  to  the  person 
purchasing."  In  such  cases  the  good  will  is  included  in  or  con- 
stitutes a  part  of  the  value  of  the  thing  sold,  and  it  follows  that 
it  can  be  valued  or  sold  only  in  connection  with  such  property  ; 
the  stock  or  business  sold  is  enhanced  in  value  by  the  estimated 
value  of  such  good  will.^  Lindley  in  his  work  on  Partnership 
intimates  that  good  will  is  generally  valued  at  so  many  years' 
purchase  on  the  amount  of  profits,^  and  in  an  English  case  ^^  it 
was  remarked  that  it  was  equal  to  about  one  year's  purchase. 

1  Case  V.  Abeel,  1  Pai.  893,  401  ;  Day-  application  of  a  partner  was  directed  to 
ton  ;;.  Wilkes,  17  How.  Pr.  610,  511;  continue  tlie  publication  of  a  political 
Sheppard  y.  Boggs,  9  Neb.  257,  2G1 ;  Ram-  paper  until  a  sale  could  be  effected,  so 
melsberg  v.  Mitchell,  29  Oh.  St.  22,  54;  that  the  good  will  might  be  saved  to  the 
Piatt  V.  Piatt,  42  Conn.  ."30,  347.  purchaser,  and  the  full  value  of  theestab- 

2  1  Coll.  on  Part.,  p.  238,  note  1.  lishment   secured    to   the  partners.     See 

3  Lindl.  on  Part.  *859.  also  Williams  v.  Wilson,  4  Sandf.  Ch.  379, 

4  Lewis  V.  Langdon,  7  Sim.  421,  425;  380. 

Howe  V.  Searing,  10  Abb.  Pr.  2i)4,  271  '  Dougherty  v.  Van  Nostrand,  1  Hoff. 

et  seq.  Ch.  68,  70. 

6  Davies   v.  Hodgson,  25  Beav.  177,  »  1  Coll.  on  Part.  §  117,  p.  241. 

188  et  seq.  '•>  Lindl.  on  Pa-t.  *863. 

^  Marten  v.  Van   Schaick,  4  Pai.  479.  ^'^  Davies  v.  Hodgson,  supra. 
In  this  case  the  receiver  appointed  upon 


§  127  DISTRIBUTION    OF   PARTNERSHIP   EFFECTS.  293 

Where  the  good  will  is  the  sul)ject  of  a  special  contract,  or  arises 
out  of  it,  it  assumes  a  more  tangible  shape,  and  may  be  valued  and 
assigned  with  the  rest  of  the  effects  ;  it  is  described  by  Collyer  as 
"  an  advantage  arising  from  the  fact  of  sole  ownership  to  the 
exclusion  of  other  persons."^  Good  will  of  this  kind,  being  a  valu- 
able addition  to  a  trade,  cannot  be  implied  from  the  general  words 
''  stock,  elTects,  ttc,"  but  must  be  created  by  some  appropriate 
words  ;  ^  and  it  has  been  held  that  the  naked  sale  of  the  good 
will  of  a  business  does  not  transfer  a  right  to  the  use  of  the  ven- 
dor's name  of  trade.^  Nor  can  a  surviving  partner,  without  the 
consent  of  the  representatives  of  the  deceased  i^artner,  use  the  firm 
name  or  the  name  of  the  deceased  partner  in  continuing  the 
business.* 

It  appears  to  be  generally  held  that  partnership  assets  must 
first  be  applied  to  the  payment  of  partnership  debts  and  the 
advances  of  either  partner,  before  the  other  partner  or  any  one 
through  him  has  any  claim  on  them."  This  principle  would,  of 
course,  exclude  the  right  of  the  widow  to  an  allowance  out  of  the 
partnership  assets,''  as  well  as  any  other  person  claiming  as  his 
legal  representative.'^  But  in  Massachusetts  it  is  held  that  the 
probate  court  may  make  an  allowance  to  the  widow  of  a  deceased 
partner  out  of  the  partnership  assets  in  the  hands  of  a  surviving 
partner  at  the  time  of  his  death,  although  these  are  insufficient  to 
pay  the  partnership  debts.^ 

1  1  Coll.  on  Part.,  p.  237.  tected  :   lb.,  p.   44.     Aliter  if  tliey  have 

2  II) ,  p.  238  et  set}.,  vvitli  authorities.  notice  :    Norwalk   Bank  v.   Sawyer,   38 
.3  Howe  V.  Searing,  supra,  Moncrief,  J.,     Oh.  St.  339,  343. 

dissentiiiij :    see    10   Abb.    Pr.   264,   276;  ^  Julian  r.  Wrightsman,  73  Mo.  569, 

Comstock  V.  White,  reported  as  a  note  to  571. 

Howe  V.  Searing,  p.  264.  ^  Thomp.  Homest.  &  Ex.  §  194;  Pond 

*  Fenn  v.  Bolles,  7  Abb.  Pr.  202.  v.  Kimball,  101  Mass.  105. 

^  Story  on  Part.  §  97,  and  numerous  *  Bush  v.  Clark,    127  Mass.  111.     In 

cases  cited  in  7th  ed. ;  Keese  v.  Coleman,  reasoning  upon  the  proposition  before  the 

72Ga.  658;  Preston  t-.  Colby,  117  111.  477,  court,  it  is  assumed   tiiat  the  surviving 

483;  Farley  i\  Moog,  79  Ala.  148.     Tiie  partner  holds  tiie  partnersliip  assets,  "and 

judgment  lien  of  a  separate  creditor  on  not  as  a  trustee"  (p.  112);  and  "as  it  is 

partnership  lands,  though  lield  in  the  in-  personal  estate  of  the  deceased,  it  is  liable 

dividual  name  of  the  debtor,  is  postponed  to  diminution  by  the  expenses  of  admin- 

to  the  equity   of  a  firm  creditor  whose  istration,  and  by  allowance  to  the  icidow." 

claim  accrueil  during  tiie  existence  of  the  "And    when    such    allowance    is    made, 

jiartnership,    though   subsequent   to    the  wliatever  part  of  the  estate  is  included 

time  when  sucii  lien  attached  :    Page  v.  in  it  ceases  to  be  assets  for  the  payment 

Thomas,   43  Oil.  St.  38.     Bnt  bona  Jide  of  debts."    (p.  11.3.)     "  This  rule  applies, 

purcliasers  for  value,  without  notice  that  whetlier  the   estate   came   to   tiie    intes- 

same  was  partnership  property,  are  pro-  tate  as  surviving  member  of  a  firm,  or 


294  ESTATES  OF  DECEASED  PARTNEKS.         §  128 

It  need  hardly  be  suggested,  that  the  property  of  a  firm,  if  all 
its  members  die  intestate,  without  heirs  or  known  next  of  kin, 
escheats  in  the  same  manner  to  the  State  as  the  property  of  an 
individual.^ 

§  128.  Jurisdiction  of  Probate  Courts  over  Partnership  Estates. — 
In  several  of  the  States  provision  is  made  by  statute  for  the  wind- 
Statutory  ing  up  of  partnership  estates  under  the  jurisdiction  of 
batYcomts^'  the  probate  court.  In  Maine  the  executor  or  adminis- 
sLip  estates'"  trator  of  a  deceased  partner  is  required  to  include  in 
In  Maine.  liis  inventory  the  property  of  the  partnership,  which 
must  be  appraised  as  in  other  cases,  and  to  retain  and  administer 
such  property  unless  the  survivor  give  bond  for  the  faithful  and 
diligent  closing  up  of  the  partnership  estate.^  Under  this  statute 
it  is  held  that  a  sale  by  the  surviving  partner  who  lias  not  given 
such  bond  is  void,  and  notes  given  for  goods  so  sold  are  without 
consideration ;  3  and  when  the  administrator  has  given  the  bond, 
which  on  citation  the  survivor  refused  to  give,  he  is  entitled  to 
the  partnership  property  against  an  officer  who  has  attached  it  in 
an  action  by  a  creditor  of  the  firm  against  the  survivor.*  Tlie 
same  statute,  substantially,  was  enacted  in  Oregon.^ 
^^^^  '  A.  doubt  was  expressed  in  this  State  whether,  under 
the  statute,  a  surviving  partner  could  transfer  real  estate,  or  any 
interest  in  real  estate,  held  for  partnership  purposes,  without  an 
order  of  the  probate  court,  and  without  giving  the  bond  required 
by  the  statute.^  But  in  a  later  case  it  was  held  that  the  probate 
court  took  no  jurisdiction  from  the  statute  to  partition  real  estate 

had  been  his  separate  estate."    (p  114.)  they  rest,  modify  the  strict  technical  rules 

Granting  that  the  surviving  partner  holds  by  which  rights  of  creditors  are  otherwise 

the  partnersliip  assets  ""oMn  trust,"  the  enforceable."      He   accordingly  allowed 

result  reached  in  tliis  case  is  inevitable ;  the  exemption  to  which  an  individual  is 

but  there  may  be  some  difficulty  in  recon-  entitled  under  the  law  of  Missouri  to  be 

ciling  this  view  with  earlier  Massachusetts  divided  between  the  two  partners.    Other 

cases   (see  Pond  v.   Kimball,   101   Mass.  similar  cases  are  mentioned  by  Thompson 

105),  and  with  authorities  in  general.     On  in  his  work  on  Homesteads  and  Exemp- 

principle,  it  seems  that  the  exemption  of  tions,  §  214  et  serj. 

a  certain  amount  of  property,  to  protect  i  Commonwealth  f.  No.  Am  Land  Co., 

the  widow  and   infant  children  of  a  de-  57  Pa.  St.  102. 

ceased  partner  from  want  and  suffering,  ^  Rgy.  St.  1883,  ch.  69. 

may  be  as  necessary  and  just  against  tlie  ^  Cook  v.  Lewis,  36  Me.  340,  345  ;  Hill 

creditors  of  a  partnership,  as  against  those  v.  Treat,  67  Me.  501. 

of  an  individual ;  a  similar  view  has  been  *  Putnam  v.  Parker,  55  Me.  235. 

enforced  in  proceedings  against  a  bank-  ^  Code,  1887,  §  1101  et  seq. 

rupt  firm :  says  Treat,  J.,  in  Young  in  ^  Knott  v.  Stephens,  3  Oreg.  269,  273. 

re,  3  N.  B.  Reg.  440,  "  The   policy   of  But  the  case  went  off  on  a  question  of 

exemptions,  and  the  legal  rules  on  which  fact. 


§  128  JURISDlCnON   OF   PROBATE   COURTS.  295 

beluiig-inj5  to  a  [nu-tiicrsliip  iiiulor  admiuistratiun,  and  that  it  is 
the  province  of  a  court  of  equity  so  to  do.^  A  similar  ^^^  ^^^^^^ 
statute  exists  in  Kansas."-^  It  was  held  in  this  State 
that  where  the  administrator  of  the  deceased  partner's  estate  gives 
the  additional  bond  required  of  him  on  taking  charge  of  the 
partnership  estate,  the  two  administrations  are  entirely  separate 
and  distinct ;  that  the  sureties  on  the  administration  bond  in  the 
estate  of  the  deceased  partner  are  not  liable  for  any  acts  of  the 
administrator  concerning  the  partnership  estate ;  that  the  funds 
derived  from  the  one  estate  are  primarily  liable  for  the  individual 
debts  of  the  deceased,  and  those  of  the  other  for  the  debts  of  the 
firm.3  Also,  that  an  action  will  lie  by  a  creditor  of  the  firm  on 
the  partnership  bond,  although  there  was  no  allowance  of  the 
claim  in  the  probate  court,  nor  a  settlement  of  the  partnership 
affairs ;  and  that  no  citation  is  necessary  to  give  validity  to  the 
bond,  if  the  surviving  partner  appears  without  citation  and  refuses 
to  comply  with  the  statute.*  Before  an  account  between  a  sur- 
vivor and  the  representatives  of  his  deceased  partner  can  be  adju- 
dicated, the  account  between  such  survivor  and  the  partnership 
estate  must  first  be  determined ;  and  in  a  controversy  between 
the  representatives  of  the  deceased  partner  and  the  survivor,  who 
has  given  the  statutory  bond  in  the  probate  court,  the  district 
court  has  jurisdiction  to  determine  such  account  between  the  sur 
vivor  and  the  firm.'^ 

In  Illinois  the  surviving  partner  is  required  to  make  a  full  in- 
ventory of  the  partnership  estate,  and  have  the  same  appraised, 
and  return  the  inventorv  and  appraisal,  together  with  . 

^  ^  1  ^^  Illinois. 

a  statement  of  the  liabilities  of  the  firm,  to  the  pro- 
bate court ;  to  settle  without  delay,  and  account  to  the  executor 
or  administrator  of  the  deceased  partner ;  and  may  be  compelled 
upon  application  of  such  executor  or  administrator  to  render 
account  in  the  probate  or  circuit  court.  Upon  proper  applica- 
tion, the  surviving  partner  may  l)e  compelled  to  give  security 
for  faithful  settlement,  &c.,  and  for  refusing  to  give  such  secu- 
rity, a  receiver  may  be  appointed,  with  like  powers  and  duties 
as  receivers  in  courts  of  chancery.     It  is  held  that  some  of  the 

1  Burnside  v.  Savier,  6  Greg.  154,  15G.  *  Carr  v.  Catlin,  13  Kans.  393,  403  et 

2  Diissler's  Rev.  1885,  ch.  37,  §  31.  seq. 

2  Glass  Company  v.  Ludlum,  8  Kans.  ^  Anderson   v.   Beebe,  22   Kans.  768, 

40,  46  et  seq.  771. 


296  ESTATES  OF  DECEASED  PARTNERS.         §  128 

provisions  of  this  act  afford  cumulative  remedies,  but  that  it  does 

not  change  the  nature  of  the  relation  existing  between  survivino- 

partners    and   the    representatives    of   the    deceased    partners  in 

equity.i  A  similar  law  exists  in  Indiana,  the  enact- 
in  Indiana.  .       c       i  •   i  i     i  i 

ment  ot  which  was  held  not  to  affect  the  rights  of  a 
surviving  partner,  who  had  charge  of  an  estate  under  the  law  in 
force  prior  thereto.^ 

In  Ohio,  the  surviving  partner  must  apply  to  the  probate  court 
for  the  appointment  of  three  appraisers,  upon  notice  to  the  admin- 
^   ^, .  istrator  of  the  deceased  partner,  who  must  make  out 

In  Ohio.  p    11    • 

a  lull  inventory  of  the  partnership  estate  and  liabil- 
ities ;  and  such  survivor  may,  with  the  consent  of  such  admin- 
istrator and  the  approval  of  the  probate  court,  take  the  estate  at 
its  appraisal,  securing  the  payment  of  tiie  excess  remaining  after 
deducting  tlie  liabilities,  and  giving  bond  for  the  payment  of  the 
partnership  debts.^ 

So  in  California,  the  interest  of  the  deceased  partner  must  be 
included  in  the  inventory,  and  appraised  as  other  property ;  the 

,   ^  surviving  imrtner  must  settle  the  affairs  of  the  part- 

In  California.  ,  •  i  •  ,       i 

nership,  and  account  with  the  executor  or  adminis- 
trator ;  and  upon  application  of  the  latter  the  court  may  order 
the  surviving  partner  to  render  an  account,  and  compel  it,  in  case 
of  neglect  or  refusal,  by  attachment.*  If  the  surviving  partner 
admit  the  existence  of  the  partnership,  the  court  may  compel 
him  to  testify  in  relation  to  such  account;^  but  the  probate 
court  can  neither  adjudicate  upon  the  question  of  partnership,  if 
raised,^  nor  decree  a  balance  on  the  account.- 

In  Alabama,  where  the  surviving  partner  becomes  also  co- 
administrator with  another  of  the  deceased  partner,  the  probate 

court  has  no  iurisdiction  over  the  settlement  of  the 

In  Alabama.  .  ,       i  p    i        i  -i 

nrm  account  with  the  estate  ot  the  deceased  partner ;  *> 
nor  has  the  probate  court  power  to  order  the  sale  of  a  deceased 

^  Nelson  v.  Hayner,  66  III.  487,  492.  estate  belonping  to  the  partnership  may 

2  Adams  v.  Marsteller,  70  Ind.  .S81.  be  transferred  to  the  survivor  under  this 

3  Rammelsberg  v.  Mitchell,  29  Oh    St.      statute:  p.  53. 

22,  49.     It  is  held  in  tiiis  case,  that  the  *  Code  Civil  Proc.  §  1585. 

law  applies  where  the  surviving  partner  ^  Andrade  v.  Superior  Court,  17  Pac. 

is  also  one  of   the  executors  ;    that   an  R.  531. 

appraisement    is    valid,    although   made  ^  Andrade   v    Superior   Court,  supra, 

upon  the  basis  of  a  previous  appraise-  p  532, 

mcntmadeat  the  request  of  the  executors,  "^  Theller  r  Such,  57  Cal  447,459. 

and  by  the  same  persons  ;  and  that  real  ^  Vincent  v.  Martin,  79  Ala.  540. 


§  129  HISTORY   OF   THE   MISSOURI   STATUTE.  297 

partner's  intei'cst  in  [)artncrsliip  lands,  before  the  firm  debts  have 
been  paid  and  the  accounts  between  the  partners  settled  and 
adjusted.^ 

§  129.  History  of  the  Missouri  Statute  giving  Jurisdiction  to  Pro- 
bate Courts  over  Partnership  Estates.  —  The  statute  of  Missouri  on 
this  subject  is  very  full,  and  gives  greater  powers  over  surviving 
partners  to  the  probate  court  than  is  given  to  it  in  any  other 
State.  Its  history  furnishes  a  strii^ing  instance  of  the  increasing 
confidence  in  the  efficiency  of  probate  courts,  and  of  the  tendency 
of  legislation  in  the  American  States  to  enlarge  the  scope  of  their 
powers  and  jurisdiction.  The  first  legislative  enactment  subject- 
ing surviving  partners  to  the  jurisdiction  of  probate  courts  is  met 
with  in  the  Revised  Statutes  of  1845,  incorporating  therein  the 
substance  of  the  Maine  statute,  witli  change  of  verbiage  only.^ 
In  1849  the  probate  court  was  authorized  to  order  a  surviving 
partner,  upon  petition  of  two  thirds  in  interest  of  the  creditors,  and 
proof  that  injustice  would  not  be  done  to  other  parties,  to  adjust, 
close,  and  settle  the  business  of  the  firm  without  such  bond  or 
security  ;  but  it  was  specially  enacted  that  such  surviving  part- 
ner shall  in  other  respects  be  subject  to  the  control  and  superin- 
tendence of  the  court.3  In  the  Revised  Statutes  of  1855,  the 
right  to  give  the  bond,  and  to  administer  the  partnership  effects, 
is  limited  to  surviving  partners  residing  in  the  State,  and  such 
administration  is  directed  to  be  had  in  the  county  in  which  the 
partnership  business  was  conducted.^  Authority  is  also  given  to 
the  surviving  partner  to  pay  partnership  debts,  without  requiring 
them  to  be  exhibited  for  allowance  in  the  probate  court ;  but 
where  the  administrator  of  tlie  deceased  partner  administers  the 
partnership  estate,  and  also  where  the  surviving  partner  refuses 
to  pay  demands  against  the  partnership,  provision  is  made  for  the 
allowance  and  classification  of  such  demands.^    Provision  is  made 

^  Roulston  V.  Washington,  79  Ala.  529.  taining  the  provisions  referred  to  in  the 

2  Rev.  St.  1845.      Tlie  commissioner  text,)  "are  new":  p.  61,  note, 
directing  and  superintending  their  pub-  3  Laws  of  Mo.  1849,  p.  10.      In  the 

lication  says  :  "  There  were  some  impor-  next  following  revision  of  the  laws  tliis 

tant  modifications  and  several  new  pro-  provision  is  omitted,  and  the  power  to 

visions  introduced  into  the  general  code,  permit  the  surviving  partner  to  adminis- 

.  .  .  The  ciianges  in  tiie  administration  ter  without  bond  tliiis  witiidrawn. 
laws  relative  to  partnersliip  effects  ...  ■*  Rev.  St.  1855,  p.  121,  §  51. 

supply  a  deficiency  in  that  law  wliich  has  5  jb.^  p.  124,  §§  62,  63.      A  surviving 

long  been  felt":  Pref.,  viii.    Tlie  revis-  partner  need  not  e.xhibit  even  his  own 

ers  content  themselves  with  tiie  remark,  claim   against  the   pnrtnership  :    Kahn's 

"  Sections  49  lo  56,  both  inclusive,"  (con-  Estate,  18  Mo.  App.  420. 


298  ESTATES   OF   DECEASED   PARTNERS-  §  129 

for  the  appearance  of  surviving  partners,  when  a  claim  is  pre- 
sented against  the  partnership  estate  administered  by  the  admin- 
istrator of  the  deceased  partner,  and  authority  given  them  to 
defend  against  such  claim,  and  appeal  from  the  decision  of  the 
probate  court.^  It  is  also  provided,  that  the  administration  of  the 
partnership  effects  shall  in  all  things  conform  to  administrations 
in  ordinary  cases,  and  that  the  person  administering,  and  his  sure- 
ties, shall  perform  the  same  duties,  be  governed  by  the  same  lim- 
itations and  restrictions,  and  be  subject  to  the  same  penalties,  as 
other  administrators  and  their  sureties.^  The  General  Statutes  of 
1865  introduced  no  change ;  but  in  the  Revised  Statutes  of  1879 
the  language  subjecting  surviving  partners  to  the  jurisdiction  of 
the  probate  court  is  made  peremptory  and  comprehensive:  "The 
administration  upon  partnership  effects,  whether  by  the  surviving 
partner,  or  executor  or  administrator  of  the  deceased  partner, 
shall  in  all  respects  conform  to  administrations  in  ordinary  cases, 
except  as  herein  otherwise  provided,  and  the  person  administer- 
ing upon  partnership  effects,  and  his  sureties  on  his  official  bond, 
shall  perform  the  same  functions  and  duties,  be  governed  by  the 
same  limitations,  restrictions,  and  provisions,  and  be  subject  to 
the  same  penalties,  liabilities,  and  actions,  as  other  administrators 
and  their  sureties."  ^ 

In  1883  the  legislature  introduced  a  further  provision,  requiring 
the  surviving  partner  administering  to  pay  partnership  debts  pro 
rata,  according  to  their  respective  classes,  securing  to  all  the 
creditors  an  equal  participation  in  the  assets  of  insolvent  part- 
nerships.* 

1  lb.,  §  64.  Previous  to  this  revision  to  be  in  the  power  of  a  surviving  partner 
a  surviving  partner  could  not  appeal  from  at  common  law,  and  the  provisions  of 
the  judgment  of  a  probate  court  allowing  the  statute  requiring  classification  of  de- 
a  demand  against  the  deceased  partner's  niands,  and  tiieir  payment  in  t!ie  same 
administrator:  Asbury  v.  Mcintosh,  20  manner  as  in  ordinary  cases  of  adminis- 
Mo.  278.  tration,  were,  previous  to  this  amendment, 

2  lb ,  §  65.  lield  insufficient  to  deprive  liim  of  such 
8  Rev.  St.  1879,  §  68.  power  :  Collier  v.  Cairns,  6  Mo.  App.  188. 
4  Laws  of  Mo.  188-3,  p.  22.  Thisprovis-     Where  there  is  an  administering  surviv- 

ion  brings  the  administration  of  partner-  ing  partner,  and  no  refusal  by  him  to  pay 

ship  estates  into  harmony  with  that  of  the  a  claim  against  the   partnership  estate, 

estates  of  individuals  with  respect  to  the  its   allowance   and   classification   by  the 

payment  of  debts :  it  destroys  the  power  probate  court  is  unauthorized,  and  gives 

of  surviving  partners  to  prefer  creditors,  such  demandant  no  priority   over  other 

to  the  deprivation  of  creditors  not  pre-  creditors   who  present  their  claim  to  the 

ferred,  where  the  assets  are  insufficient  survivor:  Easton  v.  Courtwright,  84  Mo. 

to  pay  the  debts  in  full.    Such  was  held  27. 


§  129  HISTORY    OF   THE   MISSOURI   STATUTE.  299 

The  liistory  of  this  statute,  together  witli  the  hitcrprctations  it 
received  from  the  judieiai-y  in  the  varitnis  ])hases  of  its  develop- 
ment, strikingly  illustrates,  also,  the  diiheulty  attending  the  in- 
troduction of  principles  which  require,  on  the  part  of  judges  and 
lawyers,  a  departure  from  the  familiar,  well  trodden  paths  of  the 
common  law.  "  The  provision  requiring  the  surviving  ))artner  to 
give  bond  is  a  new  one,"  says  Scott,  J.,^  "  in  derogation  of  the 
rights  of  the  surviving  partner  as  they  existed  at  common  law. 
All  interference  with  his  rights  must  have  a  support  in  the  statute 
law,  and  we  are  restrained  from  going  further  in  diminishing  his 
control  over  his  goods  than  the  words  of  the  law  fairly  warrant. 
.  .  .  There  is  nothing  here"  (reciting  the  statute)  "like  a  power 
of  removal.  ...  It  would  be  against  all  principle  to  assume  by 
imjjlication  a  power  of  taking  away  the  right  of  control  whieh  a 
man  has  over  his  own  property."  This  language  was  used  in  the 
decision  of  a  case  arising  under  the  law  of  1845,  the  Supreme 
Court  denying  the  power  of  the  probate  court  under  said  law  to 
remove  a  surviving  partner,  and  deprive  him  of  the  administration 
of  the  partnership  estate,  on  the  ground  of  non-residence.  In  the 
revision  of  the  statutes  which  took  effect  in  185G,  the  same  year 
in  which  this  decision  was  rendered,  the  residence  within  the 
State  of  the  surviving  partner  was  made  a  condition  to  his  right 
to  give  the  bond,  and  the  section  added  which  placed  the  surviv- 
ing partner  under  the  same  control  of  the  probate  court  which  it 
possessed  over  administrators.^ 

Notwithstanding  these  provisions,  and  the  further  provision 
requiring  claims  of  partnership  creditors  which  the  surviving 
partner  "  shall  refuse  to  pay  "  to  be  exhibited  to  the  probate  court 
"for  allowance  and  classification,"  giving  the  court  "the  same 
jurisdiction  of  demands  thus  presented  as  it  has  of  demands  against 
estates  in  ordinary  cases,"  the  Supreme  Court  held  that  "  under 
this  act  the  powers  of  a  surviving  partner  in  closing  up  the  af- 
fairs of  the  partnership  are  not  changed  or  restricted,  otherwise 
than  as  he  is  required  to  give  bond  and  security  that  he  will  use 
due  diligence  and  fidelity  ;  .  .  .  for  any  misconduct  or  neglect 
there  is  a  remedy  on  his  bond."  ^     The  same  view  was  announced 

1  Green  v.  Virden,  22  Mo.  50G,  511.  80,  it  was  held  that  a  partnership  creditor, 

2  Sup/a,  p.  298,  preceding;  notes  1  and  2.     who  failed  to  cause  his  claim  to  be  classi- 
*  Crow  V.   Weidner,  HO  Mo.  412,  416.     fied  in  the  probate  court,  lias  no  cause  of 

In  the  case  of  State  v.  Woods,  30  Mo.  73,     action  on  the  partnership  bond ;  but  in 


300  ESTATES  OF  DECEASED  PARTNERS.         §  130 

by  the  Court  of  Appeals  ;^  but  the  latter  court  also  held,  that  the 
remedy  by  scire  facias,  given  by  the  statute  against  the  sureties 
of  an  administrator,  may  be  resorted  to  by  the  administrator  of  a 
deceased  partner  against  the  sureties  of  a  surviving  partner  who 
fails  to  obey  an  order  of  the  probate  court  directing  him  to  pay 
over  the  amount  found  due  by  him  on  final  settlement.^ 

We  have  seen  that  upon  these  decisions  the  legislature,  in  1879, 
directed  the  winding  up  of  a  partnership  estate  by  the  surviving 
partner  to  conform,  in  all  respects,  to  the  law  of  administration, 
so  far  as  applicable,  and  in  1883,  to  meet  the  cases  of  Denny  v. 
Turner,  Collier  v.  Cairns,  and  Crow  v.  Weidner,  expressly  required 
the  payment  of  partnership  debts  pro  rata  according  to  their 
class.^  But  even  the  peremptory  terms  of  the  statute  of  1879  are 
inadequate  to  extinguish  the  difference  between  the  winding  up 
of  a  partnership  by  the  surviving  partner,  and  the  administration 
of  an  estate  by  the  executor  or  administrator  of  a  decedent.  The 
Supreme  Court  has  recently  decided  that  the  probate  court  has 
no  power  to  authorize  the  surviving  partner  to  sell  partnership 
real  estate  for  the  payment  of  partnership  debts.* 

§  130.    Power  of  Probate  Court  to  require  Bond.  —  The  jurisdic- 
tion conferred  upon  probate  courts  over  the  estates  of  partner- 
ships dissolved  by  death  is  exclusive,  and  carries  with 

Exclusive  . 

jurisdiction  of  it  such  equitable  powers  as  may  be  necessary  to  wind 
pio  cou  .  ^^^^  ^^^^  partnership  affairs.  Until  final  settlement  of 
such  estate  in  the  probate  court,  the  circuit  court  or  court  possess- 
ing original  chancery  powers  has  no  jurisdiction  over  it.^  The 
final  settlement  has  the  force  and  effect  of  a  judgment,  from 
which  appeal  may  be  taken.^ 

In  Maine,  as  already  shown,''  the  surviving  partner  has  no 
power  over  the  partnership  effects,  after  the  death  of  a  copartner, 
until  he  has  given  the  statutory  bond  ;  ^  but  in  Missouri  he  is  not 

Denny   v.   Turner,   2  Mo.  App.  52,  the  ^  Supra,  p.  2fl8,  notes  3  and  4. 

promise  of  the  surviving  partner  to  pay  *  I'^aston  v.  Courtvvriglit,  84  Mo.  27, 39, 

a  tlemand  was  held  sufficient  to  defeat  the  lioUling  tlint  such  a  partner  may  sell  the 

statutory  limitation,  so  as  to  enable  the  realty  to  pay  firm  debts,  without  a  license 

creditor  to  obtain  the  allowance  against  from  the  probate  court. 

tlie  administrator  of  the  deceased  partner,  ^  Ensworth  v.  Curd,  68  Mo.  282 ;  Cald- 

if  presented  within  the  two  years  after  well  r.  Hawkins,  73  Mo.  450. 

the  removal  of  the  surviving  partner.  '^  McCartney   v.    Garneau,  4  Mo.  App. 

1  Denny  v.  Turner,  supra;   Collier  v.  566. 

Cairns,  6  Mo.  App.  188,  191.  ^  Ante,  §  128. 

2  McCartney  v.  Garneau,  4  Mo.  App.  ^  Cook  v.  Lewis,  36  Me.  340. 
566,  567. 


§  130  POWER   TO   REQUIRE   BOND.  301 

divested  of  his  common  law  powers  to  wind  up  the  pff^^^^f^^_ 
j)artuci-sliii)  until  the  administrator  of   the  deceased  fusai  to  give 

1        •    •  1  •  J.    1        bond. 

partner  has  given  the  bond  authorizing  him  to  take 
charge  of  the  partnership  efi'ects  on  the  survivor's  refusal  to  do 
so.^  This  doctrine  involves  the  power  of  the  surviving  partner  to 
fully  settle  up  the  partniM-ship  affairs  and  transfer  the  firm  projj- 
erty  in  payment  of  its  debts  without  giving  the  bond  required  by 
the  statute,  unless  the  administrator  of  the  deceased  partner  give 
the  bond,  which  he  cannot  do  until  the  expiration  of  at  least 
thirty  days  from  the  partner's  death.  It  also  results  from  these 
cases,  that  no  one  can  be  authorized  to  take  charge  of  the  partner- 
ship estate,  save  the  surviving  partner  or  the  administrator  of  the 
deceased  partner.^  Hence,  if  the  estate  of  the  deceased  partner  is 
in  charge  of  the  public  administrator,  it  may  become  the  duty  of 
the  probate  court  to  order  the  public  administrator  to  take  charge 
of  and  wind  up  the  partnership  estate  in  his  official  capacity,  if 
the  surviving  partner  refuse  to  give  the  bond.^ 

Although  the  statute  provide  for  citation  against  the  surviv- 
ing partner,  such  citation  is  not  essential  to  the  validity  of  the 
bond  to  be  given  by  the  administrator  of  the  deceased  ^^.^^j^^  ^^  ^^^ 
partner;  notice  to  him  that  he  will  ap])lv  to  the  pro-  smvivm- in- 

^  '  1  1    .-  »  administrator 

bate  court  for  an  order  directing  him  to  take  charge  of  deceased 

1  ,1  •  •  pavtner. 

of   the  partnership   estate  unless   the    survivor   give 
bond,  is  sufficient.* 

The  inventory  which  the  administrator  of  a  deceased  partner  is 
required  to  make  before  it  is  determined  whether  he  or  the  sur- 
viving partner  shall  administer  the  partnership  estate.  Liabilities  of 
includes  the  partnership  effects  for  the  purpose  only  relpecUv'e"  ^^ 
of  ascertaining  the  interest  of  the  deceased  partner ;  '^°'"^*- 
it  does  not  authorize  such  administrator  to  take  charge  of  or  exer- 
cise any  control  over  the  same.     Hence  the  sureties  on  his  bond 
are  not  liable  for  conversion  of  the  partnership  effects  so  invento- 
ried, made  after  giving  the  additional  bond  required  to  authorize 
him  to  take  charge  of  the  partnership  effects.^ 

1  Weise'y.  Moore,  22  Mo.  App.  530,  "  Weise  v.  Moore,  22  Mo.  App.  530. 

534;  Bredow  v.  Mutual  Savings  Institu-  ^  Headlee  v.  Cloud,  51  Mo.  301. 

tion,  28  Mo.  181,  184,  recognized  in  Mu-  *  James  v.  Dixon,  21  Mo.  538;  Cam', 

tual    Savings    Institution    v.   Enslin,   37  Catlin,  13  Kans.  30.3. 
Mo.  453,457;  Ilolman  v.  Nance,  84  Mo.  5  Orrick  r.   Vahey,  40  Mo.  428,  430; 

674,  678;  Easton  v.  Courtwright,  84  Mo.  Carr  v.  Catlin,  13  Kans.  393;  Glass  Com- 

27,  38.  pany  i;.  Ludlum,  8  Kans.  40. 


302  ESCHEATS-  §  131 


CHAPTER   XIII. 

ESCHEATS. 

§  131.  Devolution  of  Property  in  Default  of  Heirs.  —  Property 
of  deceased  persons  necessarily  vests  in  the  State  if  no  one  is 
The  State  sue-  Competent  to  take  it  as  heir  or  testamentary  donee.^ 
ceeds  to  prop-    a  j^  sccms  to  be  the  nnivcrsal  rule  of  civilized  society, 

erty  if  there  _        ''^  ^ 

are" no  heirs.  that  when  the  dcccascd  owner  has  left  no  heirs  it 
should  vest  in  the  public  and  be  at  the  disposal  of  the  govern- 
ment." 2  Such  property  is  said  to  escJieat,  —  a  term  applied  in  the 
common  law  to  the  reversion  of  an  estate  to  the  lord  from  whom  it 
was  held,  either  propter  defectum  sanguinis,  i.  e.  on  account  of  the 
failure  of  heirs  of  the  grantee,  or  propter  delictum  tenentis,  i.  e.  on 
account  of  the  felony  or  attainder  of  the  tenant.^  Of  course,  there 
can  be  no  escheat  in  this  country  on  the  latter  ground  (nor  in 
England,  since  corruption  of  the  blood  and  forfeitures  and  es- 
cheats are  done  away  with  by  statute  ^)  ;  hence,  in  the  United 
States,  escheat  signifies  a  reversion  of  property  to  the  State  in 
consequence  of  a  want  of  any  individual  competent  to  inherit.^ 

§  132.    Escheat  at  Common  Law.  —  It  will  be  remembered  that 
at  common  law  the  term   escheat  is  properly  applicable  to  real 
estate  only,  since  it  is  an  incident  to  the  feudal  ten- 
estate  escheats    ure,*^  although  Blackstone,  in  one  part  of  his  Comm.en- 
at  common  law.  ^^^-^^^^  ^^^^^^  ^j^^  doctriuc  of  cschcats  as  applying  to 

property  in  general.'     The  title  by  escheat  accruing  to  the  lord 

1  "  It  is  right  and  proper,  that  when  *  33  &  34  Vict.  c.  23. 

the  owner  of  property  flies  without  giving  ^  Within  the  States  of  the  American 

it  away,  and  without  leaving  any  object  Union,  escheats  for  defect  of  heirs  are  to 

having  natural  claims  to  his  bounty,  such  the  State  in  which  the  property  is  situate, 

as   heirs   or   next   of    kin,   his   property  and  not  to  the   United  States  :  Cooley's 

should  go  to  the  community  of  which  he  Blackst.,  vol.  1,  bk.  2,  p.  302,  note  9. 
is  a  member  "  :  Per  Tucker,  P.,  in  Hub-  «  2  Bla.  Comm.  72,  89,  244. 

bard    v.    Goodwin,    3    Leigh,    492,   518;  ^  "!„  case  no  testament  be  permitted 

Matthews  i\  Ward,  10  Giir&  J.  443,  450.  by  the  law,  or  none   be  made,  and    no 

-  Bouvier,  Law  Diet.  "Escheat,"  citing  heir  be   found   so   qualified  as    the   law 

Domat,  Droit  Pub.,  liv.  1,  t.  6,  s.  3,  n.  1  ;  requires,  still,  to  prevent  tlie  robust  title 

4  Kent,  424  ;  2  Bla  Comm.  244  :  1  Washb.-  of  occupancy  from  again  taking  place,  the 

R.  Prop.  24,  27 ;  1  Browne,  Civ.  L.  250.  doctrine  of  escheats  is  adopted  in  almost 

3  Abbott,  Law  Diet.  "  Escheat."  every  country  "  :  2  Bla.  Comm.  11. 


§  132  ESCHEAT    AT    COMMON    LAW.  303 

upon  the  termination  of  liis  vassal's  tenancy  (by  death  r^j^j^  j^^.  ^^_ 
without  heirs  or  corruption  of  the  tenant's  blood)  was  ^^^^^^'/^Jj^J^i'^ 
not  complete  until  the  lord  performed  an  act  of  his  some  notorious 
own  by  entering  on  the  lands  and  tenements  so  es- 
cheated, or  suing  out  a  ivrit  of  escheat,  on  failure  of  which,  or  by 
doing  any  act  amounting  to  an  implied  waiver  of  his  right,  as  by 
accepting  homage  or  rent  of  a  stranger  who  usurps  the  posses- 
sion, his  title  by  escheat  was  barred.^      It  is  accordingly  said, 
that  at  common  law  a  process  like  a  recovery  of  the  lands  by 
suit  must  be  gone  through  with  before  the  land  can  properly  be 
considered  as  belonging  to  the   State.^     But  the  ne- 

p       f.^        ,,  ,,     /.^         p  1  ,,     when  inquest 

ccssity  of  an  "  mquest  oi  oihce,     or  "  oihce  round,     ofoiiiceis 
as  the  proceeding  to  ascertain  the  sovereign's  title  is  "^'^'-^^^''y- 
called,  seems  to  apply  to  cases  only  in  which  the  escheat  is  claimed 
on  the  ground  that  the  heir  is  an  alien.     Story,  J.,  states  the  com- 
mon law  to  be,^  that  an  alien  can  take  lands  by  pur-  ahcu  holds 
chase,  though  not  by  descent ;  he  cannot  take  by  the  to  hhn  bypSr- 
act  of  law,  but  he  may  by  the  act  of  the  party.    There  ti' be  dTv'd'S 
is  no  distinction,  whether  the  purchase  be  by  grant  or  on  office  found. 
devise.     The  estate  vests  in  the  alien,  not  for  his  own  benefit,  but 
for  the  benefit  of  the  State ;  the  alien  has  the  capacity  to  take,  but 
not  to  hold  lands ;  they  may  be  seized  into  the  hands  of  the  sov- 
ereign.     Until   the  lands  are  so  seized,  the  alien  has  complete 
dominion  over  them,  and  may  convey  them  to  a  purchaser.     The 
title  acquired  by  an  alien  by  purchase  is  not  divested  until  office 
found,  because,  as  the  freehold  is  in  the  alien,  and  he  is  tenant  to 
the  lord  of  whom  the  lands  are  holden,  it  cannot  be  divested  out 
of  him  but  by  some  notorious   act,  by  which  it  may  appear  that 
the  freehold    is  in  another.     And  the  reason  of  the  on  death  of 
difference  why,  when  an  alien  dies,  the  sovereign  is  eSirtTwUh^ 
seised  without  office  found  is  because  otherwise  the  out  inquest, 
freehold  would  be  in  abeyance,  as  an  alien  cannot  have  any  in- 
heritable blood.     Even  after  office  found,  the  king  is  not  adjudged 
in  possession,  unless  the  possession  were  then  vacant ;  for  if  the 
possession  were  then   in  another,  the  king  must  enter  or  seize 

1  2  Bla.  Comm.  24.5.  until  tlie  fact  is  judicially  ascertained  by 

2  3  Washb.  on  R.  Prop.  *444.  "By  the  a  proceeding  in  the  nature  of  an  inquest 
civil  law  as  well  as  the  common  law,  the  of  office":  People  v.  Folsom,  5  Cal.  373, 
King  cannot  take  upon  himself  tlie  pos-  378. 

session  of  an  estate,  said  to  have  escheated,  *  Fairfax  v.  Hunter,  7  Cr.  603,  619. 


304  ESCHEATS.  §  133 

by  his  officer,  before  the  possession  in  deed  shall  be  adjudged 
to  him. 

It  seems  to  follow  that  "  whenever  the  owner  dies  intestate, 
without  leaving  any  inheritable  blood,  or  if  the  relations  whom 
he  leaves  are  aliens,  there  is  a  failure  of  competent  heirs,  and  the 
lands  vest  immediately  in  the  State  by  operation  of  law.  No 
inquest  of  office  is  requisite  in  such  cases."  ^ 

The  distinction  between  escheat  (to  the  chief  lord  of  the  fee) 

and  fojfeiture  (to  the  crown)  must  not  be  overlooked.     The  one 

Distinction  be-  ^^^   ^   coiisequence   of    the    feudal   connection,   the 

andTorfdture.    o^hcr  was  anterior  to  it,  and  inflicted  upon  a  principle 

t-   .  r     of  public  policy.2     It  follows  from  the  nature  of  es- 

No  escheat  of  ^  i  ^ 

lands  held  in     cheats  at  comiuon  law,  that  trust  property  does  not 

escheat  upon  the  death  of  the  cestui  que  trust,  because, 

the  legal  title  being  in  the  trustee,  there  is  no  lack  of  an  owner, 

although  the  owner  of  the  beneficiary  title  die  without   heirs.^ 

Personal  property,  which  in  default  of  next  of  kin 

But  otherwise  i       i  .  •       •        n     t    i    i       i 

as  to  personal  goes  to  the  king,  as  parens  patrice,  is  allodiaf  by  law  ; 
P'ope'ty.  ^^^  £^^,  ^j^jg  reason,  when  held  in  trust,  the  king  is  as 

well  entitled  to  it  as  to  any  other  personal  estate.* 

§  133.   Escheats   under    the    Statutes    of    the   several  States.  —  It 

results  from  what  has  already  been  stated,  that  escheat  in  the 

feudal  sense  has  never  existed  in  America,  at  least  not 

Nature  of  t->         i  r  i         i  i  i-  n  •  <• 

escheat  in  siiicc  the  Revolution,"'  but  has  here  become  a  tailing  oi 
the  estate  into  the  general  property  of  the  State,  either 
because  the  tenant  is  an  alien,  or  because  he  has  died  intestate 
without  lawful  heirs  to  take  his  estate  by  succession.^  This  prin- 
Personai  and  ciplc  includcs  personal  property  as  well  as  real,  and 
Iht'^s'ubj'ec?  i^  ^0  treated  in  the  statutes  governing  the  subject  in 
to  escheat.  ^^q  several  States,  some  of  them  distinguishing  between 
the  two  species  of  property  in  the  method  pointed  out  for  its 
recovery  by  the  State,  and  as  to  the  time  allowed   claimants  to 

1  4  Kent,  *424;  Farrar  v.  Dean,  24  Mo.  ^  Mr.  Washburn  calls  attention  to  the 
16;  People  v.  Conklin,  2  Hill,  (N.  Y.)  G7,  existence  of  tsclieat,  in  the  feudal  sense, 
74  ;  Pom.  Mun.  L.  667.  See  post,  §  133,  in  Marj'land,  and  perhaps  a  few  other  of 
on  the  necessity  of  inquest  under  the  the  Colonies,  before  the  Revolution  .  3 
statutes.  Washb.  R.  Prop.  *443.     A  full  account 

2  4  Kent,  *427.  of  the  grant  of  lands  to  Lord  Baltimore 
8  Burgess  v.  V^heate,  1  Wm.  Bl.  123  ;     maj'  be  found  in  the  cases  of  Fairfax  v. 

1  Eden,  177 ;  2  Washb.  R.  Prop.  *185.  Hunter,  7  Cr.  603,  and  Ringgold  r  Ma- 

4  Burgess  v.  Wheate,  1  Wm.  Bl.  123,     lott,  1  Har.  &  J.  2f)9. 
164.  ^  3  Washb.  *448 ,  4  Kent,  *424. 


§  133  ESCHEATS  IN  THE  SEVERAL   STATES.  305 

prove  their  right  to  property  declared  escheated  ;  but  in  all  of 
them,  (except  where  the  statute  is  silent  on  this  point,  as  in  Colo- 
rado,^) the  right  of  the  State  to  property  left  without  [„  Maryland 
a  competent  heir  or  testamentary  donee  is  placed  upon  jj^op'^rty 
the  same  ground,  whether  it  is  real  or  personal.     In  j'^gg'^^e^'e^rs 
Maryland,  personal  property  escheats  if  there  be  no  be  within  fifth 
heirs  within  the  fifth  degree  of  consanguinity.  ^ 

The  American  doctrine  also  includes  property  held  in  trust, 
whether  by  express  enactment  of  the  statute,  as,  for  instance,  in 
Kentucky ,3  Pennsylvania,*  Virginia,^  and  West  Vir-  property  held 
ginia,*^  or  as  a  necessary  consequence  of  the  right  of  '"  t*""*^- 
the  State  as  ultimus  hceres ;"*  a  fortiori  if  the  trust  be  a  contriv- 
ance to  defeat  the  law,  as  where  an  alien  purchases  real  estate 
in  the  name  of  a  trustee  to  evade  the  law  prohibiting  aliens  from 
holding  real  estate.^ 

It  has  also  been  held,  that  an  estate  in  remainder,  if  vested  in 
fee,  may  escheat  before  the  termination  of  the  life  estate ;  as 
where  a  testator  devised  the  remainder  to  one  who  is  Escheat  of 
incompetent  to  take  it,  and  dies  without  heirs.  In  ""emamders. 
such  case,  the  interest  devised  goes  to  the  State  by  escheat ;  ^  but 
in  Pennsylvania  it  is  held  that  the  remainder  cannot  be  escheated 
until  the  termination  of  the  life  estate.^*'  This  subject  is  again 
mentioned  in  connection  with  the  subject  of  the  title  of  the 
State." 

We  have  seen  that  at  common  law  no  inquest  of  office  is  neces- 
sary to  vest  the  title  by  escheat  in  the  king,!^  unless  the  escheat 
is  claimed  because  the  heir  is  an  alien.^^     The  same  inquest  not 
doctrine  holds  good  in  the  United  States,  except  where  "eTs^reqiured" 
such  proceeding  is  directed  by  express  statute.^*   With  ^y  statute. 

1  The   Constitution  directs   that    the  «  Kelley's  Rev.  St.,  p.  548,  §  24. 
school  fund   shall  consist,  i.  a.,  of  prop-  ''  Matthews  v.  Ward,  10  G.  &  J.  443, 
erty  escheated  to  the  State :  Const.  (Gen.  451  et  seq. ;  Commonwealth  v.  Naile,  supra. 
St.  1883),  art.  ix.  §  5.  ^  Hubbard  v.  Goodwin,  3  Leigh,  492, 

2  Rev.  Code,  1878,  p.  417,  §  17.  514. 

8  Gen.  St.  1887,  p.  542,  §  4.  ^  People   v.  Conklin,   2  Hill,   (N.  Y.) 

*  But   the   Pennsylvania    statute   (of  67,  74. 

1869)  was  held  impossible  of  execution  ^°  Commonwealth  v.  Naile,  supra. 

as   to  trust  estates:    West's  Appeal,  04  ^^  Post,  §  134. 

Pa.   St.  186,  194.     See,  however,  Com-  '-  Ante,  §  132. 

monwealth  v.  Naile,  88  Pa.  St.  429,  434,  ^^  Maynard  v.  Maynard,  36  Hun,  227, 

in  which  the  escheat  of  property  held  231. 

by  a  trustee  was  held  good.  "  Crane  v.  Reeder,  21  Mich.  24,  78  et 

6  Code,  1887,  §  2396.  seq.  (citing  Mooers  v.  White,  6  John.  Ch. 
VOL.  I.  — 20 


306  ESCHEATS.  §  133 

respect  to  real  estate  this  is  in  many  States  required.  Tlie  statutes 
of  Arkansas,^  Illinois,^  Maine,^  Mississippi,*  Missouri,^  Pennsyl- 
vania,*' South  Carolina,^  Virginia,^  West  Virginia, 
saiy  for  per-  and  pcHiaps  some  other  States,  distinguish  between 
propel  y.  ^^^^^  ^^^  personal  property  in  this  respect ;  so,  by  the 
present  Code  in  California ;  ^  but  in  Delaware,^**  Georgia,^i  and 
Oregon,^2  there  must  be  proceedings  in  the  nature  of  an  inquest 
Escheat  of  per-  for  personal  as  well  as  for  real  property.  In  respect 
de'tenimmi  b"^  ^^  pcrsoual  property  the  law  in  most  States  makes  it 
probate  court,  ^he  duty  of  the  probate  court  in  wliich  administration 
is  pending  to  adjudge  the  question  of  escheat,  either  as  constitut- 
ing an  element  of  the  order  of  distribution,  since  the  State  is  but 
the  ultimus  hceres  in  such  cases,  or  by  express  direction  of  the 
statute,  as  in  Alabama,^^  Arkansas,^*  Georgia,^'^  lUinois,^^  Indiana,^" 
lowa,^^  Missouri,!^  and  Vermont.^**  The  action  or  pro- 
cover  escheated  ceeding  by  the  State  to  recover  escheated  property 
piopery.  fj'om  a  pcrson  in  possession,  is  distinct  from  and  must 

not  be  confounded  with  the  inquest  of  office ;  in  such  action  the 
State  is  in  the  same  position  as  any  individual  suing  for  his  right, 
and  in  ejectment  must  recover  upon  the  strength  of  its  own  title, 
the  bare  possession  of  the  defendant  being  sufficient  to  defeat  the 
State  unless  full  proof  be  made  of  all  the  elements  constituting 

300;  Slater  v.  Nason,  16  Pick.  345,  349;  proceeding  to  secure  the  property  of  an 
Montgomery  v   Dorion,  7  N.  H.  475  ;  Ru-  intestate  leaving  no  resident  heirs,  as  an 
beck  ?'.  Gardner,  7  Watts,  455;  O'Hanlin  escheat  to  the  school  fund,  is  premature 
V.  Den,  20  N.  J.  L.  31  ;  s.  c.  21  N.  J.  L.  if  brought  witliin  five  years  .  People  v. 
582);    Sands  v.  Lynham,  27  Gratt.  291,  Eoach,  18  Pac.  K.  407. 
296  ;  Reid  v.  State,  74  Ind.  252.     Where  i"  Laws,  1874,  p.  495. 
the   statute  requires  proceedings  in  the  ^^  Code,  1882,  §  2671. 
nature  of  an  inquest  of  office,  the  record  ^^  Code,  1887,  §  31.36. 
thereof  is  the  only  evidence  by  which  a  i^  Code,   1886,  §  1936  et  seq.     The  ad- 
title  by  escheat  can  be  established  :   Wal-  ministrator  must  pay  the  money  to  the 
lalian  v.  Ingersoll,  117  111.  123.  judge  of  probate;  and  if  no  heir  appears 

1  Dig.  1884,  §  2768.  within  two  years  after  publication,  he  is 

2  St.  &  Curt.  St.  1885,  p.  1058,  par.  3.  to  cause  the  real  estate,  if  any,  to  be  sold, 

3  Rev.  St.  1883,  p.  785,  §  11.  and  the  proceeds,  after  payment  to  him 
*  Rev.  Code,  1880,  §  88-5.  by  the  administrator,  are  placed  in  the 

5  Rev.  St.  1879,  §  5573.  State  treasury. 

6  Bright.  Purd.  Dig.  1883,  p.  713,  §  8.  "  Dig.  1884,  §  2760. 

7  Rev.  St.  1882,  §  2300;  Muir  v.  Thorn-         i^  Code,  1882,  §  2671. 

sou,  6  S.  E.  R  309.  is  St.  &  Curt.  St.  1885,  p.  10-58,  par.  2. 

8  Code,    887,  §  2375.  i^  Fuhrer  v.  State,  55  Ind   1-50,  152. 

9  Code  Civ.  Proc.  §  1269.     Since  all  is  Miller's  Code,  1886,  §  2461  et  seq. 
non-residents  may  appear  and  claim  sue-  i^  Rev.  St.  1879,  §  5.571. 

cessions  within  five  years  after  the  death         20  liev.  L.  1880,  §  2235. 
of  the  decedent  (Civil  Code,  §  1404),  a 


§  133  ESCHEATS    IN   THE   SEVERAL   STATES.  307 

tlic  escheat.^     So  the  State  may,  like  an  individual,  be  estopped 
by  its  own  grant  and  warranty  from  claiming  escheat.^ 

In  most  of  the  States  it  is  made  the  duty  of  some  officer,  spe- 
cially vested  with  autliority  for  such  purpose,  to  investigate  and 
ascertain   whether   property,  real    or   personal,  have 
escheated,  and  to  take  all  needful  steps  in  securing 
such  to  the  State.     In  Delaware,'^  Kentucky,*  Virginia,"  and  West 
Virginia,  this  officer  is  appointed  by  the  governor,  and  is  called 
Escheator ;  in  Pennsylvania^  the  auditor  general,  and  in  Soutli 
Carolina'  the  county  auditor,  is  made  by  statute  ex  Egciieators 
officio  escheator ;  and  in  Alabama,^  Georgia,^  and  lowa,^*^  *^  ogicw. 
the  administrator  of  an  estate  to  which  there  are  no  competent 
heirs  is  charged  with  the  duties  of  an  escheator.     In  most  States 
the  duty  to  recover  escheated  property  for  the  State  is  imposed 
upon  the  attorney   general,^^   prosecuting   attorney,^^  State's    at- 
toruey,^^  district  attorney,^*   or  directly  upon  the  representative 
officers  of  the  school  boards  to  be  benefited  by  the  proceeding  ;^5 
because,  with  rare  exceptions,  the  proceeds  of  escheated  property 
are  dedicated  in  the  several  States  to  the  general  school  fund,  or 
otherwise  appropriated  for  the  purposes  of  public  in-  Re„e(5c,aries 
struction.i*^     It  is  held,  that  the  beneficiaries  of  these  ""\''''"  '^^  of 

esfheat  enti- 

donations  acquire  a  vested  right  to  the  property  es-  tied  to  notice 

.  .  '  before  sale  of 

cheated,  as  soon  as  the  tacts  which  give  rise  to  the  piopert.v  for 
escheat  exist ;  hence  a  law  changing  the  destination 

1  3  Washb.  R.  Prop.  *445 ;  Common-  "  Rev.  St.  1882,  §  2316. 

wealtli  V.  Hite,  6  Leigl),  588  ;  Catliam  v.  »  Code,  1886,  §  1937. 

State,  2  Head,  558;  Hammond  v.  Inloes,  9  Code,  1882,  §  2G71.     But  the  admin- 

4  Md.  138;    Ramsey's  Appeal,  2  Watts,  istrator  will  be  restrained  in  equity  from 

228,  231  ;    Commonwealth   v.   Selden,    5  recovering  possession  of  a  tract  of  lain! 

Munf.  160;    State  v.  Meyer,  63  Ind.  33,  left   by  one  who  died  intestate,  without 

38.     But  it   is   held   in    Louisiana,   that  heirs,  distributees,  or  creditors,  from  one 

where  the   State   claims  the   succession,  who  purchased  the  same  and  has  been 

III  a  proceeding  against  the  universal  leg-  many  years  in  possession  :  Smith  v.  Gen- 

atee,  who  is  m  possession  of  the  estate,  try,  16  Ga.  31. 

on  the  ground  of  his  alleged  incapacity,  ^^  Miller's  Code,  §  2462. 

in  which  proceeding  third  parties  inter-  ^i  In  California,  Maine,  Massachusetts, 

vened  claiming  as  heirs  at  law,  the  bur-  Minnesota,  New  Jersey,  New  York, 

den  is  not  on  the  State  to  prove  that  the  i-  In  Arkansas,  Indiana,  Missouri,  Ohio, 

deceased  had  left  no  heirs  ;  but  on  the  in-  '^'^  In  Illinois. 

tervenors  to  prove  their  heirship  •    Sue-  "  In  Mississippi,  Tennessee,  Texas, 

cession  of  Townsend,  3  Southern  R.  488.  '^  In  Kansas,  North  Carolina  (see  Oli- 

-  Commonwealth  »•.  Andre,  3  Pick.  224.  veira  v.  University,  Phill.  Eq.  09). 

8  Laws,  1874,  p.  495,  §  2.  "^  In  many  States  this  is  provided  by 

*  Gen.  St.  1887,  p.  540.  the  constitution,  and  gives  rise  to  doubts 

6  Code,  1887,  §  237.  concerning  the  power  of  the  legislature 

8  Bright.  Purd.  Dig.  713,  §  8.  or  of  courts  to  dispose  of  escheats. 


308  ESCHEATS.  §  134 

of  escheats  can  operate  prospectively  only  ;  ^  and  an  order  to  sell 
the  land  of  one  who  died  without  leaving  heirs,  for  the  payment 
of  his  debts,  is  void,  unless  the  parties  entitled  to  escheated  lands 
are  present,  or  have  notice  of  the  application  for  such  order.^  So, 
where  the  constitution  provides  who  shall  be  the  recipient  of 
escheated  property,  the  same  cannot  be  diverted,  either  by  admin- 
^      .    .  istration,  or  by  act  of  the  leffislature.^     The  law  in 

Law  111  force  *'  ° 

at  the  time  of     force  at  the  time  of  the  death  of  one  who  leaves  only 

the  intestate's         v         i     •         t  •  . 

death  governs  alien  lieirs  dctcrmmes  the  question  of  escheat ;  and  a 
treaty  securing  to  aliens  competent  to  inherit  real 
estate  the  right  to  such  inheritance,  confers  no  right  upon  an 
alien  who  was,  at  the  time  of  the  intestate's  death,  incompetent, 
though  subsequently  aliens  were  by  statute  enabled  to  hold  real 
estate  by  inheritance.* 

§  134.  Nature  of  the  Title  by  which  the  State  holds  Escheats.  — 
Chancellor  Kent,  in  his  Commentaries,  mentions  wdth  disapproba- 
At  common  tion  "a  Very  inequitable  rule  of  the  common  law,  that 
esdiea't'ckar'^^  ^^  ^^^^  king  took  lands  by  escheat,  he  was  not  subject 
of  trusts.  to  the  trusts  to  which  the  escheated  lands  were  previ- 

ously liable  "  ;  ^  and  says,  that  "  the  opinion  in  England  is  under- 
stood to  be,  that,  upon  the  escheat  of  the  legal  estate,  the  lord  will 
hold  the  escheat  free  from  the  claims  of  the  cestui  que  trust ^^;^ 
and  he  points  out  certain  English  statutes'^  as  calculated  to  check 
In  America  the  ^hc  Operation  of  SO  unreasonable  a  i)rinciple.  In 
fn?ere*t*orthe^  America  the  principle  is  universally  recognized,  that, 
decedent.  where  property  escheats,  the  State  takes  precisely  the 

title  which  the  party  dying  had,  and  no  other.^  It  is  taken  in  the 
condition  and  to  the  extent  in  which  he  held  it.  This  is  the  ne- 
cessary result  of  the  principle  that  escheat  in  America  means  only 
the  substitution  of  the  State  to  the  rights  of  an  owner  who  is 


1  Rock  Hill  College  v.  Jones,  47  Md.  5  4  Kent,  *425,  citing  3  Harg.  Co.  Litt. 
1,   18  et  seq.;    University  of  North  Car-  13,  n.  7  ;  Pimb's  case,  Moore,  196. 

olina  V.  Foy,   1    Murphy,   58,  81  et  seq.,  «  4  Kent,  *426. 

flail,  J.,  dissenting,  on  the  ground  that  "^  40  Geo.  III.  c.  88 ;  see  also  59  Geo. 
the  University  is  but  the  agent  of  the  III.  c.  94,  enabling  the  king,  by  war- 
State,  p.  89.  rant  or  grant,  to  execute  the  trust.     The 

2  Ilinkle    v.   Sliadden,   2    Swan,   46  ;  statute  of  4  &  5  Wm.  IV.  c.  23,  provided 
Parchman  v.  Charlton,  1  Coldw.  381,  388.  that,  when  a  trustee  of  lands  died  with^ 

3  State  V.  Reeder,  5  Neb.  203,  205  ;  out  an  heir,  the  court  of  chancery  may 
Harvey  v.  Harvey,  25  S.  C.  283.  appoint  a  trustee   to   act  for  the   party 

*  Hauensteins   v.  Lynham,  28  Gratt.  beneficially  interested. 

62,  67.  8  3  Washb.  R.  P.  *446  ;  4  Kent,  *42?. 


§  134  TITLE    BY   WHICH   THE    STATE    HOLDS.  309 

incompetent  to  hold  the  title,  or  as  heir  to  an  estate  in  case  there 
be  no  other  heir  conii)cteiit  to  take  it.^  In  sonic  of  the  States  it 
is  i)rovided  by  statute  that  trust  estates  shall  not  escheat  for  the 
want  of  a  trustee,'-^  or  that  the  State  holds  escheated  lands  subject 
to  existing  trusts.*^  It  likewise  follows,  that  an  estate  in  remain- 
der may  be  escheated  during  the  existence  of  a  valid  life  estate,"* 
and  that  the  escheat  of  the  intervening  estate  does  not  affect  the 
remainder ;  ^  and  that  an  "  escheat  grant,"  i.  e.  a  grant  by  the 
State  of  proi)erty  which  it  had  accjuircd  by  escheat  to  a  purchaser, 
passes  the  estate  just  as  the  original  grantee  held  it,  with  all 
privileges  and  appurtenances,  and  subject  to  all  liens  and  incum- 
brances, existing  at  the  time  of  the  escheat.*^ 

Most  of  the  States  make  liberal  provisions  to  enable  heirs  to 
recover  property  even  after  judgment  of  escheat,  if  they  were  not 
parties  to  the  inquisition,  and  had  no  notice  of  the  How  heirs  may 
proceeding.  Where  money  and  the  proceeds  of  the  [Xrkalce"^ 
sale  of  personal  or  real  property  have  been  paid  into  '^f'^'"  escheat. 
the  State  treasury,  the  relief  consists  in  a  provision  authorizing 
the  payment  of  the  net  amount  of  the  escheat  to  the  claimants 
who  within  a  certain  time  make  sufficient  proof  of  their  title. 
The  time  is  limited  to  three  years  for  personal  property  in  Mis- 
sissippi ' ;  to  five  years  for  personalty  in  Delaware,^  and  for  re- 
alty in  Illinois,^  Mississippi,^^  Missouri,ii  and  South  Carolina  ^'^ ; 
to  six  years  in  Georgia  ^^ ;  to  seven  years  in  Arkansas  ^^  and  Del- 
aware ^^;  to  ten  years  in  lowa,^^  North  Carolina,^^  Oregon,^^ 
Virginia,^^  West  yirginia,^'^  and  for  personalty  in  lUinois^^  and 
Missouri  22 ;  to  seventeen  years  in  Vermont  -^ ,  to  twenty  years  in 

1  Casey  v.  Inloes,   1   Gill,   430,   507  ;  ^  Rev.  Code,  1880,  §  891. 
Straub  v.  Dimm,  27  Pa.  St.  36,  39 ;  Pareli-  »  Laws,  1874,  p.  498,  §  18 

man  v.  Ciiarlton,  1  Coldw.  381.     But  the  9  St.  &  Cur.  St.  1885,  p.  1060,  par.  7. 

State  is  not  an  heir  in  the  sense  of  being  w  Rev.  Code,  1880,  §  892. 

entitled  to  notice  of  the  probating  of  a  "  Rev.  St.  1879,  §  5588. 

will,  like  an  heir  at  law  :  State  v.  Ames,  i-  Kev.  St.  1882,  §  2306. 

23  La.  An.  69.  is  Code,  1882,  §  2674. 

2  As  in  Virginia  and  West  Virginia.  1*  Dig.  1884,  §  2783. 

8  New  York  may  be  instanced.  I6  p^r  real  estate :  L.  1874,  p.  498,  §  18. 

*  People  V.  Coniclin,  2  Hill,  (N.  Y.)  67.  ic  Miller's  Code,  §  2464. 

But  see  antp,  p.  305,  note  10.  n  Code,  1883,  §  1504. 

6  Borland  v.  Dean,  4  Mas.  174,  180.  is  Code,  1887,  §  3141. 

«  Casey  v.  Inloes,  1  Gill.  430,  507.     As  i^"  Code,  §  2403.     See  also  Code,  1873, 
land  is  not  escheatable  so  long  as  there     p.  877,  §  33. 

are  competent  heirs  of  the  original  gran-  -o  KcUey's  Kev.  St.  ch.  81,  §  32. 

tee,  the  grant  by  the  State  of  lands  before  21  gt.  &  Curt.  St.  1885,  p.  1060,  par.  7. 

there  is  a  failure  of  heirs  is  simply  void  :  22  r^v.  St.  1870,  §  5586. 

Hall  V.  Gittings,  2  Har.  &  J.  112,  125.  23  Kev.  L.  1880,  §  2238. 


310  ESCHEATS.  §  135 

California  ;i  to  twenty-one  years  in  Kansas  ;2  and  to  thirty  years 
in  Connecticut.^  No  time  seems  to  be  fixed  within  which  applica- 
tion must  be  made  in  Maryland,*  Michigan,^  New  Hampshire,*^ 
Rhode  Island,'  and  Texas.^  It  is  held  in  Pennsylvania,  that  the 
heirs  or  kindred  of  any  partner  of  a  partnership  whose  property 
has  escheated  may  claim  the  property  taken  by  the  State.^  In 
South  Carolina  it  is  held  that,  where  an  heir  claims  comiiensation 
for  property  declared  escheated,  the  fact  that  the  legislature  has 
granted  away  the  right  to  the  land  in  question,  and  that  no  money 
has  been  paid  into  the  treasury,  does  not  defeat  the  claim. ^"^ 

The  State  may,  by  legislative  grant,  give  title  to  lands  escheated 
for  the  want  of  heirs  before  office  found ;  ^^  but  if  the  grant  be  of 
land  to  which  the  State  has  no  title,  the  statute  constituting  the 
grant  is  void.^^ 

§  135.  Administration  of  Escheated  Estates.  —  It  is  provided  in 
the  statutes  of  some  of  the  States,  that  where  a  person  dies  leav- 
ing no  competent  heirs,  there  shall  nevertheless  be 

Administration         °    .    .  /  ,    ^      ■       ,i  i  t 

of  personalty  admmistration  of  his  estate  in  the  usual  manner.  In 
as  usual.  Alabama,!^  Arkansas,!*  Coimecticut,!^  Illinois,!^  Iowa," 

Kentucky, IS  Missouriji^NewHainpshire,^^  North  Carolina,^!  Texas,^^ 
and  Wisconsin,23  this  is  affirmatively  required  by  the  language  of 
the  enactments.  It  is  obvious  that  in  these  States  the  object  of 
the  law  is  fully  accomplished  by  placing  the  State  in  the  category 

1  Code  Civ.  Proc.  §  1272.     But  this  i'  Colgan  v.  McKeon,  24  N.  J.  L.  566 

only  authorizes   such  non-resident  alien  McCaughal  v.  Kyan,  27  Barb.  376,  378 

to  show  that  which  he  might  have  shown  Rubeck  o.  Gardner,  7   Watts,  455,  458 

had  he  been  made  a  party  to  the  escheat  Nettles  v.  Cunimings,  9  Rich.  Eq.  440. 

proceedings,  to  wit,  that  he  did  appear  ^^  Colgan  v.  McKeon,  sujna. 

and  claim  the  property  within  five  years  ^^  Code,    1886,    §  1937.     Creditors    of 

from  the  time  of  the  succession  :  State  v.  a   decedent  whose   lands  have  been   es- 

Smith,  70  Cal.  153,  157.  cheated  cannot  subject  such  lands  to  the 

'■^  c'omp.  L.  1885,  §  2624,  ch.  37,  §  179.  satisfaction  of    their  claiuis   without   an 

8  Gen.  St.  1888,  §  648.  order  from   the  ordinary  to  the  adminis- 

*  Rev.  Code,  1878,  p.  417,  §  18.    But  no  trator,  as  in  other  cases  •  Congregational 

collateral  heirs  more  distant  than  children  Church  v.  Morris,  8  Ala.  182,  193. 

of  brothers  and  sisters  can  apply.  ^*  Dig.  1884,  §  2760. 

5  Howell's  St.  §  5988.  ^^  Gen.  St.  1888,  §  647. 

6  Gen.  Laws,  1878,  p.  477,  §  8.     Ap-  is  st.  &  Cur.  St.  1885,  p.  1058,  par.  2. 
plication  must,  however,  be  made  to  the  "  Code,  1886,  §  2461. 
legislature.  ^^  Gen.  St.  1887,  p.  538,  §  8. 

■7  Attorney  General  v.  Providence,  8  ^^  Rev.  St.  1879,  §  5565. 

R.  I.  8  10.  ""  Gen.  L.  1878,  pp.  476,  477. 

8  St.  1888,  §  1783.  21  Code,  1883,  §  1504. 

9  Commonwealth  v.  No.  Am.  Land  Co.,  ^^  Rev.  St.  1888,  §  1771. 
57  Pa.  St.  102.  ^3  Rev.  St.  1878,  §  3936. 

1^  Ex  parte  Williams,  13  Rich.  77,  84. 


§  135  ADMINISTRATION   OF   ESCHEATED   ESTATES.  311 

of  an  heir,  represented  in  all  matters  requiring  representation, 
in  court  or  otherwise,  by  the  official  eschcator  or  person  desig- 
nated to  guard  the  interest  of  the  State  in  such  proceeding ;  and 
the  rights  of  creditors  or  other  claimants  against  such  estate  are 
adjudicated  precisely  as  if  there  were  no  question  of  escheat. 
In  other  States  the  necessity  of  administration  in  the  usual  form 
results  from  the  absence  of  legislation  directing  the  management 
of  escheated  estates.  But  in  some  States  administra-  Administration 
tion  in  the  ordinary  sense  is  excluded  by  the  authority  ^^  escheator. 
vested  in  the  escheator,  or  person  acting  for  the  State,  with 
respect  to  property  escheated.  Such  seems  to  be  the  case  in 
Delaware,!  Georgia,^  Indiana,^  Mississippi,*  Ohio,"  Pennsylvania,^ 
Rhode  Island,^  South  Carolina,^  Tennessee,^  Virginia,io  and  West 
Virginia. 

1  Upon  inquest  and  finding  that  de-  *  Rer.  Code,  1880,  §  888. 
cedent  left  property  and   no   heirs,  the  ^  Rev.  St.  1880,  §  4163. 
escheator  seizes   the   goods   and   causes  ^  West's  Appeal,  64  Pa.  St.  186,  193. 
tliem  to  be  sold,  unless  the  person  in  pos-  ''  Haigh  v.  Haigh,  9  R.  I.  26,  29. 
session  gives  bond  that  he  will  traverse  »  Rev.  St.  1882,  §  2310. 

at   the   next  term  of  the  court :   Laws,  »  Code,  1884,  §  2962. 

1874,  p.  497,  %8et  seq.  lo  Code,  1887,  §  2371  et  seq. ;  Watson  v. 

2  Code,  1882,  §  2671.  Lyle,  4  Leigh,  236,  246. 

3  Rev.  St.  1881,  §§  1143,  2478,  5668. 


TITLE    SECOND. 

OF  THE  INSTRUMENTALITIES   EFFECTING  THE 
DEVOLUTION. 


§  136.  Tribunals  and  Officers  employed  by  the  Law  to  accom- 
plish the  Devolution.  —  Having  in  the  preceding  pages  pointed 
out  the  principles  which  determine  the  succession  of  property 
upon  the  death  of  its  owner,  and  considered  the  various  channels 
through  which  it  descends  to  the  new  owners,  it  seems  natural 
now,  in  the  further  development  of  our  subject,  to  examine  the 
instrumentalities  employed  by  the  law  to  accomplish  and  control 
the  devolution.  It  seems  more  convenient,  in  doing  this,  though 
not,  perhaps,  in  strictly  logical  sequence,  to  consider,  in  the  first 
place,  the  nature,  scope,  and  power  of  the  various  courts  and 
tribunals  armed  with  jurisdiction  in  this  respect ;  and,  next,  the 
nature  and  extent  of  the  authority  of  those  officers  whom  the  law 
intrusts  with  the  active  administration  of  the  estates  of  deceased 
persons,  —  appointed,  or  at  least  confirmed,  by  these  courts  and 
tribunals,  and  amenable  to  them  for  their  official  conduct,  but 
deriving  their  authority  directly  from  the  law,  which  determines 
the  scope  of  their  powers,  duties,  and  liabilities,  and  whose  office 
it  is  to  personate  the  deceased  in  all  matters  touching  the  legal 
disposition  of  his  property. 


PART    FIRST. 

OF   THE   TRIBUNALS  CONTROLLING  THE  ADMINISTRA- 
TION  OF  THE  ESTATES  OF   DECEASED  PERSONS. 


CHAPTER   XIV. 

PROBATE   POWERS    AS   EXISTING    AT   COMMON   LAW   AND   UNDER 
ENCxLISH    STATUTES. 

§  137.  Origin  of  the  Ecclesiastical  Jurisdiction  over  the  Probate 
of  Wills. —  Surrogate  Bradford,  in  the  Introductory  Note  to  his 
series  of  Surrogate  Reports,  gives  a  concise  and  lucid  account  of 
the  origin  of  the  ecclesiastical  jurisdiction  over  the  probate  of 
wills  and  the  administration  of  the  estates  of  deceased  persons, 
evincing  great  learning,  and  a  thorough  investigation  of  the  his- 
torical development  of  the  jurisdiction,  and  of  the  rules  and 
principles  of  the  civil  law  as  affecting  this  department  of  juris- 
prudence.i  It  is  indispensable  to  a  proper  understanding  of  the 
nature  of  probate  courts  in  the  United  States  to  travel  over  the 
same  ground,  ta  some  extent  at  least,  in  order  to  gain  an  insight 
into  the  principles  and  doctrines  of  the  common,  civil,  and  canon 
law  constituting  the  unwritten  presuppositions,  tacitly  understood 
and  premised,  of  American  statutes  regulating  the  administration 
of  the  estates  of  deceased  persons.  Mucli  that  seems  contradic- 
tory, capricious,  or  incomprehensible  in  the  several  enactments  and 
decisions,  will  be  seen  to  harmonize,  and  the  principles  of  the  civil 
and  canon  law,  vitaliziug  the  dry  formulae  of  the  common  law, 
will  serve  to  fill  out  and  round  off  the  statutory  provisions.^ 

i  1  Bradf.  v.  et  seq.  the  land,  that  is,  to  that  branch  of  the 
-  Courts  of  probate  "exercise  many  common  law  known  and  acted  xipon  for 
powers  solely  by  virtue  of  our  statutes  ;  ages,  the  probate  or  ecclesiastical  law  "  : 
but  tliey  have  a  very  extensive  jurisdic-  Bell,  C.  J.,  in  Morijan  v.  Dodge,  44  N.  H. 
tion  not  conferred  by  statute,  but  by  a  255,  258.  And  see  pout,  §  149,  on  the  pro- 
general  reference  to  the  existing  law  of  cedure  in  probate  cnurts. 


314  PROBATE   POWERS   AT    COMMON   LAW.  §  137 

This  branch  of  English  jurisprudence,  or  rather  of  practice 
under  the  common  law,  was  for  a  long  time,  and  until  quite  re- 
cently, known  as  well  by  the  name  of  ecclesiastical  as  by  that  of 
testamentary  or  probate  law,  because  the  clergy  had  assumed 
testamentary  jurisdiction  and  exercised  it  in  their  spiritual  courts. 
Just  when  this  authority  was  first  asserted  does  not  very  clearly  ap- 
pear; but  on  the  Continent  certainly  before  the  reign  of  Justinian,^ 
because  he  undertook  to  curb  the  practice  by  an  edict.^  "  But," 
says  Selden,  "  here  we  see  that  the  clergy,  even  in  those  days,  had 
set  their  foot  upon  the  business ;  and  I  suppose  that  since  that  time 
they  never  pulled  it  wholly  out  again."  ^  In  England,  although 
the  claim  and  practice  of  spiritual  courts  in  this  particular  is  said 
to  have  been  originally  a  mere  usurpation,*  it  became  a  privilege 
enjoyed  by  them,  not  as  a  matter  of  ecclesiastical  right,  but,  as 
Blackstone  puts  it,  by  the  special  favor  and  indulgence  of  the 
municipal  law ,5  producing  what  he  terms  "  a  peculiar  constitu- 
tion "  of  the  island. 

This  jurisdiction,  exercised  in  the  county  court,  where  the 
bishop  and  the  earl  sat  conjointly  for  the  transaction  of  business 
until  the  separation  of  the  ecclesiastical  from  the  secular  jurisdic- 
tion by  William  the  Conqueror,^  was  plausibly  claimed  by  the 
bishop,  as  being  in  harmony  with  the  customs  of  the  Normans, 
and  the  civil  and  canon  law,  which  gave  to  bishops  the  charge  of 
the  execution  of  testaments  containing  bequests  in  pios  ususJ  It 
is  certain,  says  Bradford,  that  the  constitution  of  the  ecclesias- 
tical tribunals  was  authorized  by  William ;  and  that  their  juris- 
diction included  the  probate  of  wills  soon  after,  if  not  from  the 
instant  of  separation  from  the  county  courts,  is  almost  capable  of 
direct  proof.^ 

1  A.  D.  527-565.  wode,  "  the   ablest  canonist   of  the  fif- 

2  "  And  also  by  a  mulct  of  50  pound  teenth  century,"  and  from  a  canon  of  the 
weight  of  gold,  saying  Ahsurdum  est  nam-  Archbishop  Stratford  to  show  that  tes- 
que  si  promiscuis  actibus  rerum,  turbentur  tamentary  causes  and  the  administration 
officla,  et  alii  creditum  alius  subtrahat ;  ac  of  intestates'  goods  was  ab  olim  granted 
prcEcipue  Clericis,  quibus  opprobrium  est,  si  to  the  ordinary  consensu  regio  et  magnatum 
peritas  se  velint  Disceptationum  esse  Forpn-  regni  Anglii^. 

siinn  oslendere"  :  Spelman,  Prob.  of  Wills  ^  2  Burn's  Eccl.  Law,  33;    Spelman, 

(Posthumous  Works),  129  ;  3  Blackst.  96.     131. 

3  Spelman,  129.  '^  1  Bradf.  xxii. 

*  See  note  appended  to  Hensloe's  Case,  »  i  Bradf.  xxii.;  3  Blackst.  96;  Spel- 

in  9  Co.  37,41;  Spelman,  sM/)ra;  4  Burn's  man,    131;    4   Burn's    Eccl.    Law,   291; 

Eccl.  Law,  291 ;  3  Blackst.  95.  Hensloe's  Case,  citing  numerous  ancient 

o  3  Blackst.  95,  quoting  from  Linde-  authorities,  9  Co.  37. 


§  138  ORIGIN    OF    ADMINISTRATION    IN    ENGLAND.  315 

But  as  the  jurisdiction  before  the  Noriuan  cumiuest  was  a 
purely  lay  jurisdiction,  exercised  not  only  in  the  county  courts, 
courts  of  hundred  or  tithing,  but  also,  by  special  custom  or  fran- 
chise, in  local  courts  in  which  the  earl,  the  lord  of  the  manor,  the 
municipal  magistrate,  or  other  civil  officer  presided,  those  courts 
that  were  such  by  special  custom  or  franchise  retained  their 
powers  in  this  respect;  tiiere  were  many  lay  courts  in  England 
exercising  testamentary  jurisdiction,  of  indefinite  antiquity  or  of 
Saxon  origin,  when  the  act  establishing  courts  of  probate^  was 
passed. 2 

§  138.  Origin  of  Administration  in  England.  —  Anciently,  SayS 
Blackstone,^  the  king,  as  parens  patrice,  seized  upon  the  goods  of 
persons  dying  intestate  and  administered  them  through  his  minis- 
ters of  justice,  probably  in  the  county  court ;  and  the  prerogative 
was  granted  as  a  franchise  to  many  lords  of  manors,  and  others, 
who  continued  to  hold,  by  prescription,  the  right  to  grant  admin- 
istration to  their  intestate  tenants  and  suitors  in  their  own  courts 
baron.^  While  the  franchise  so  granted  remained  in  the  preroga- 
tive and  prescriptive  courts  for  many  centuries,  and  until  the 
passage  of  the  Probate  Act,  together  with  the  jurisdiction  to 
grant  probate  of  wills  of  personalty,^  the  jurisdiction  formerly 
exercised  by  the  king  or  his  representatives  was  vested  in  favor 
of  the  Church  in  prelates,  "•  because  it  was  intended  by  the  law 
that  spiritual  men  are  of  better  conscience  than  laymen,  and  that 
they  have  more  knowledge  what  things  would  conduce  to  the 
benefit  of  the  soul  of  the  testator  than  laymen  have."^  The 
Church,  accordingly,  obtained  the  supervision  of  the  distribution, 
or  administration,  of  the  personal  property  of  intestates ;  the 
ordinary  might  seize  them  and  keep  them  without  wasting,  and 
also  might  give,  alien,  or  sell  them  at  his  will,  and  dispose  of  the 
money  m  pios  tisus.  "  So  that,"  says  Blackstone,  "  properly  the 
whole  interest  and  power  which  were  granted  to  the  ordinary 
were  only  those  of  being  the  king's  almoner  within  his  diocese,  in 
trust  to  distribute  the  intestate's  goods  in  charity  to  the  poor,  or 
in  such  superstitious  uses  as  the  mistaken  zeal  of  the  times  had 
denominated  pious."  "^ 

1  20  &  21  Viet.  c.  77.  *  Antp,  §  137,  notes  1  and  2,  above. 

2  1    Bradf.  xix.  ;   Foster's  "  Doctors'  "^  Perk.,  Prof.  Book.  §  486. 
Commons  "  :  see  post,  §  204.  "^  2  Bl.  494,  495.     Surrogate  Bradford 

3  2  Comm.  494.  calls  attention  to  tlie  omission  of  the  32d 

4  Ibid.  article  of  Magna  Cliarta  in  the  cliarter  of 


316  PROBATE   POWERS    AT   COMMON    LAW.  §  139 

The  trust  thus  vested  in  the  ordinary  was  most  solemn  and 
conscientious  in  its  nature.     The  reverend  prelates  were  not  ac- 
countable to  any  but  to  God  and  themselves  for  their  conduct. 
"  If  he  [the  ordinary]  did  otherwise  [than  dispose  of  the  money 
in  pios  usus],  he  broke  the  confidence  which  the   law  reposed 
in  him."i     "The  common  law  did  not  make  him,  being  a  spir- 
itual governor,  subject  to  temporal  suits  for  such  things.     And 
this  was  a  great  defect  in  the  common  law."  ^     The  trust  was, 
in  the  course  of  time,  grossly  abused.     The  Popish  clergy,  says 
Blackstone,  took  to  themselves  (under  the  name  of  the  Church 
and   poor)   the   whole    residue   of    the   estate   of   the   deceased, 
after   the   partes   rationabiles,   or   two   thirds,    of   the   wife    and 
children  were  deducted,  without  paying  even  his  debts,  or  other 
charges  thereon.     This  led  to  the  enactment  of  the  Statute  of 
Westminster  II.,^  directing   the  ordinary  to  pay  the  intestate's 
debts  so  far  as  his  goods  will  extend.^     But  even  after  this  check 
to  the  exorbitant  power  of  the  clergy,  whereby  the  ordinary  was 
made  liable  to  creditors,  yet  the  residuum  after  payment  of  debts 
remained  still  in  their  hands,  to  be  applied  to  whatever  purpose 
his  conscience  should  approve.     It  was  the  flagrant  abuse  of  this 
power  that  again  called  for  legislative  interposition ;  by  the  stat- 
ute of  31  Edw.  III.  c.  11,  the  estates  of  deceased  persons  were 
directed  to  be  administered  by  the  next  of  kin  of  the  deceased,  if 
he  left  no  will,  and  not  by  the  ordinary  or  any  of  his  immediate 
dependants.     This  statute  originated  the  system  of  confiding  the 
settlement  of  the  estates  of  intestates  by  their  next  of  blood,  ap- 
pointed by  the  ordinary ,5  putting  them,  with  respect  to  suits  and 
accounting,  upon  the  same  footing  with  executors,  and  making 
them  officers  of  the  ordinary .^ 

§  139.  Powers  of  Ecclesiastical  Courts  in  England.  —  The  Com- 
mon law  of  England,  as  affected  by  the  statutes  above  named,' 
and  such  of  those  noticed  below  as  were  enacted  before  the  settle- 
ment of  the  American  Colonies,  is  at  the  basis  of  the  American 

Henry  III.,  as  to  the  payment  of  the  debts  *  "A  use  more  truly  pious  than  any 

of   the  deceased;  an  omission,  he   says,  requiem  or  mass  for  his  soul " :  2  Blackst. 

which  is  thought  to  have  been  procured  495. 

by  ecclesiastical  influence:  1  Bradf.  xxv.  &  The  process  ran  in  the  name  and 

note  /*).  under  the  seal  of  the  bishop:   1  Bradf. 

1  2  Blackst.  494.  xxvi.  note  t. 

2  Graysbrook  v.  Fox,  1  Plowd.  R.  275,  ^  Hensloe's  Case,  9  Co.  39 ;  2  Blackst. 
277.  496. 

3  13  Edw.  I.  c.  19.  '  13  Edw.  I.  c.  19;  31  Edw.  III.  c.  11. 


§  139  POWERS   OF   ECCLESIASTICAL   COURTS.  317 

statutes  concerning  adniinistration,  and  tlic  law  in  the  American 
States  in  so  far  as  it  has  not  been  supplanted  l)y  their  own  stat- 
utes. It  is  therefore  necessary  to  follow,  still  further,  the  history 
of  the  English  law  on  this  subject. 

By  the  statute  of  21  Henry  VIII.  c.  5,  the  discretion  of  the  ordi- 
nary in  the  appointment  of  administrators  to  intestate  statuto  au- 
estates  was  enlarged,  so  as  to  authorize  the  appoint-  poi^VtmentTf 
mcnt  of  either  the  widow,  or  the  next  of  kin,  or  both,  ^'f?^-  ^^f^,, 

'  '  '    01  Kin,  or  both, 

at  the  ordinary's  pleasure;  and  in  the  case  of  two  or  to  administer. 
more  persons  of  the  same  degree  of  kindred  he  might  appoint 
whichever  he  pleased.^ 

The  Statute  of  Distributions  ^  destroyed  the  common  law  right 
to  the  pars  ratioyiah'dis^  and  made  the  estate  distributable  among 
the  widow  and  next  of  kin,  leaving  still,  however,  in 

11  1         r-      1  1      .     .  P        ,  .  1         Statutes  re- 

the  hands  oi  the  administrator,  for  his  own  use,  tlie  quiring  cUs- 
third  formerly  retained  by  the  Church,  until  finally,  by 
the  statute  of  1  Jac.  II.  c.  17,  this  third  was  made  distributable,  as 
well  as  the  remainder  of  the  intestate's  estate.^ 

The  powers  of  the  spiritual  courts  were  thus  restricted  to  the 
iudicial  cognizance  of  the  class  of  cases  arising  out  ^  ,   .     .   , 

.  °  Ecclesiastical 

of  the  probate  of  wills,  the  grant  of  administration,  jmisciiction 
and  the  payment  of  legacies,  and  thus  remained  un-  of  deceased 
til,  by  the  statute   creating  the   Court   of   Probate,*  P"*""^" 
their  powers  in  this  respect  were  wholly  abrogated,  fnjclfurro? 
The  authority  to  appoint  administrators,  and  to  take  ^''^bate. 
proof  of  wills,  resided  in  the  bishop  of  the  diocese  wherein  the 
testator   or   intestate    dwelt   at   the    time   of   his   death,   unless 
he  left  effects  to  such  an  amount  as  to  be  considered  notable 
goods  (bona  notabilia,  fixed  by  the  ninety-third  of  the  canons  at 
the  value  of  X5  or  over)  within  some  other  diocese  or  peculiar  ; 
in  such  case  the  will  was  to  be  proved  before  the  metropolitan 
of  the  province  by  way  of  prerogative,  whence  the  courts,  where 
the  validity  of  such  wills  was  tried,  and  the  offices  where  they 
were  registered,  were  called  the  prerogative  offices  of  Canterbury 
and  York.^ 

This  spiritual  jurisdiction  of  testamentary  causes  is  described 
by  Blackstone  as  "  a  peculiar  constitution  of  this  island ;  for  in 

'  2  Bla.  Comm  *496.  s  i  Bradf.  xxvi. 

2  22  &  23  Car   IL  c    10 ;  29  Car.  II.  *  20  &  21  Vict.  c.  77. 

c.  30.  6  Wms.  Ex.  [289.] 


318  PROBATE   POWERS   AT   COMMON  LAW.  §  140 

almost  all  other,  even  Popish,  countries  all  matters 
spiritual  testamentary  are  under  the  jurisdiction  of  the  tempo- 

junsdiction.  ^^^  magistrate."  ^  It  was  exercised  by  the  consistory 
courts  of  diocesan  bishops,  and  in  the  prerogative  court  of  the 
metropolitan,  generally,  and  in  the  arches  court  and  court  of 
delegates  by  way  of  appeal.  It  is  divisible  into  three  branches, 
the  probate  of  wills,  the  granting  of  administrations,  and  the 
suing  for  legacies,  in  respect  to  the  latter  of  which  the  jurisdic- 
tion is  concurrent  with  courts  of  equity .^ 

As  the  rules  of  tlie  canon  and  civil  law  had  been  adopted  by 
the  ecclesiastical  courts,  they  gradually  became  the  basis  of  the 
ecclesiastical  law,  prevailing,  not  propria  vigore,  but  only  so  far  as 
the  custom  and  prescription  have  admitted  them  in  the  spiritual 
courts.3  "The  proceedings  in  the  ecclesiastical  courts,"  says 
Blackstone,*  "  are  therefore  regulated  according  to  the  practice 
of  the  canon  and  civil  law ;  or  rather,  according  to  a  mixture  of 
both,  corrected  and  new-modelled  by  their  own  peculiar  usages 
and  the  interposition  of  courts  of  common  law.  .  .  .  When  all 
pleadings  and  proofs  are  concluded,  they  are  referred  to  the  con- 
sideration, not  of  a  jury,  but  of  a  single  judge,  who  takes  informa- 
tion by  hearing  advocates  on  both  sides,  who  thereupon  forms  his 
interlocutory  decree,  or  definitive  sentence,  at  his  own  discretion, 
which,  if  not  appealed  from  in  fifteen  days,  is  final  by  the  statute 
of  25  Henry  VIII.  c.  19. 

"  But  the  point  in  which  these  jurisdictions  are  most  defective 
is  that  of  enforcing  their  sentences  when  pronounced, 

Ordinarv  could  ,  .   ,       ,  ,  ,,  i      -     j.i     i.       r 

enforce  his  for  which  they  have  no  other  process  but  that  ot 
excommumca-  ex communication  ;  which  is  described  to  be  twofold  : 
tiononiy.  ^j^^  j^^^  ^^^  ^1^^  greater  excommunications."^ 

S  140.   Probate    Jurisdiction  in    other    English   Courts. — The  ex- 
tent of  jurisdiction  exercised  by  the  ecclesiastical  courts  of  Eng- 
land included  but  a  small  proportion  of  the  judicial 

Fowers  in  '■       '■ 

ecclesiastical      authority  involved   in  the  adjudication  of   questions 

courts  but  a  •'  ciTij.j.rr' 

small  piopor.     arising  iu  the  settlement  of  dead  mens  estates,     lo 

tion  of  iudicial  '"  , ,  ,  ,i  i       „£ 

control  over  somc  cxtcnt,  the  power  to  pass  upon  the  accounts  ot 
adminTstmtoi.   cxccutors  and  administrators,  if  no  trial  of  issues, 

1  3  Bla.  Conini.  *95.  ^  By  act  of  53  Geo.  TTI.  c.  127,  the 

2  3  Bla.  Comm.  *97,  98.  sentence    of   excommunication   was   dis- 

3  1    Bradf.    xxvi.    citing  Hale's  Hist,     placed  by  the  writ  de  confumace  capiendo, 
Com.  L.  28.  issued  out  of  chancery  upon  the  signifca- 

*  3  Bla.  Comm.  *100.  vit  of  tiie  ecclesiastical  court. 


§  141  JURISDICTION   IN   OTHER   ENGLISH   COURTS.  319 

either  of  fact  or  law,  was  necessary,  and  to  grant  them  a  dis- 
charge after  a  true  accounting,  seems  to  have  been  exercised  by 
the  ecclesiastical  tribunals.i     B,it  the  trial  of  disputed  accounts, 
involving  the  testimony  of  witnesses,  questions  of  de-  Residue  of 
vastavit,  liability  to  creditors,  legatees,  and  distribu-  -rcourts  o*! 
tees,  the  marshalling  of  assets,  recourse  to  real  estate  ^^'^  "'"^  ^^"''y- 
for  the  payment  of  debts  and  legacies,  etc. ;  in  short,  the  control 
over  executors  and  administrators  in  every  respect  not  included 
in  the  probate  of  wills,  appointment  of  administrators,  and  pay- 
ment of  legacies,  was  exclusively  in  the  common  law  and  chan- 
cery courts,  as  well  as  the  appointment  and  removal  of  guardians 
and  curators  to  minors  and  persons  of  unsound  mind,  and  the 
control  over  them  in  respect  of  the  management  of  their  estates. 
It  should  therefore  be  remembered,  that  there  is  a  ^.^^^^^^^^^^^ 
very  ereat  difference  between  the  totalitv  of  the  pow-  two!Mi  powers 

.      .  "  ,.  -.I      of  F,n;;li-<h  tes- 

ers  exercised  by  the  English  courts  m  connection  with  tanu-ntaiy 
the  administration  of  estates  of  deceased  persons,  Ameriom  pro- 
sometimes  called  testamentary  or  probate  jurisdiction,  b^tecouns. 
and  the  testamentary  or  probate  jurisdiction  of  ecclesiastical 
courts,-^ a  distinction  which  is  of  the  utmost  importance  in  as- 
certaining the  conclusiveness  of  the  judgments  and  decrees  of  the 
several  classes  of  courts  in  collateral  proceedings,  and  also  in 
comparing  the  relative  powers  of  ecclesiastical  courts  with  those 
of  American  probate  courts.  For  although  the  tribunals  estab- 
lished in  the  Colonies  were  at  first  modelled  after  those  of  the 
mother  country,  whose  functions  they  were  to  perform,  so  that 
they  were  to  some  extent  governed  by  the  rules  of  the  civil  and 
canon  law,  and  in  some  instances  took  even  the  name  of  their 
prototypes,  yet  in  the  course  of  time  they  were  invested  with 
greater  powers  and  jurisdiction,^  and  to  fit  them  for  the  efficient 
exercise  of  the  new  functions  invested  in  them,  they  were  made 

1  Swinb.  on  Wills,  pt.  6.  §  21 ;  4  Burn's  courts  of  common  law,  and  not  analocrous 
Eccl.  L.  609  (9tli  ed.) ;  Wms.  Ex.  [2000] ;  to  any  proceedings  of  the  probate  court 
Toll.  E.x.  &  Adin  495.  See  post,  §  498  as  a  court  of  ecclesiastical  jurisdiction. 
et  seq.,  on  the  subject  of  accounting.  Those  various  statutes,  based  upon  the 

2  "  The  powers  of  the  probate  courts  suggestions  of  practical  expt'Hence,  and 
have  been  gradually  increased  by  a  series  passed  with  the  view  of  promoting  the 
of  state  and  provincial  statutes  reaching  prompt  and  economical  disposition  of  the 
back  to  the  time  of  their  sopamtion  from  matters  to  which  they  relate,  have  re- 
the  common  law  courts.  Jurisdiction  has  suited  in  the  large  jurisdiction  now  exer- 
been  given  them  of  matters  formerly  cised  by  probate  courts  " :  Smith's  Prob. 
within  the  exclusive  cognizance  of   the  Law  (Mass.),  ch.  1. 


820  PROBATE    POWERS   AT    COMMON   LAW.  §  141 

courts  of  record,  with  a  public  seal  and  a  clerk ;  have  organized 
process  and  executive  officers,  stated  terms,  and  continued  func- 
tions.^ The  several  legislatures,  being  at  perfect  liberty  to  adajjt 
the  constitution  and  powers  of  the  courts  to  the  requirements  and 
convenience  of  the  people,  invested  these  tribunals,  not  only  with 
the  powers  possessed  by  the  spiritual  courts  in  England,  but,  in 
most  instances,  with  all  the  powers  possessed  by  the  English 
ecclesiastical,  common  law,  and  chancery  courts,  in  so  far  as  they 
were  necessary  to  control  the  administration  of  decedents'  estates ; 
and  within  the  sphere  of  the  jurisdiction  conferred  upon  them 
they  are  a  branch  of  the  judiciary  of  the  State,  as  much  so  as  any 
other  court  of  general  or  plenary  power.^ 

1  Obert  V.  Hammel,  18  N.  J.  L.  73,  79.         2  Miller  v.  Iron  County,  29  Mo.  122. 


§  141  ORIGIN   OF   PROBATE   COURTS   IN    AMERICA.  321 


CHAPTER  XV. 

NATURE  OP  PROBATE  COURTS  IN  AMERICA. 

§  141.  Origin  of  Probate  Courts  in  America. — The  essential 
characteristics  of  courts  whose  office  it  is  to  control  the  adminis- 
tration of  estates  not  owned  by  persons  competent  to  act  sui  juris, 
have  been  indicated  in  an  earlier  chapter.^  It  will  appear  from 
the  consideration  of  the  nature,  power,  and  scope  of  the  courts 
intrusted  with  this  species  of  jurisdiction  in  the  several  American 
States,  to  what  extent  the  principle,  there  mentioned  as  resulting 
from  the  nature  of  property  and  the  office  of  the  State,  has  been 
practically  realized  and  found  recognition  in  the  statute-books. 
It  is  easy  to  understand  why  this  principle  was  so  inadequately 
recognized,  and  never  expressed  as  an  organic  element  of  the 
law,  in  England.  The  only  courts  exercising  a  peculiar  jurisdic- 
tion over  the  subject,  the  present  Court  of  Probates,  taking  the 
place  of  the  former  ecclesiastical  and  manorial  courts,  extend 
their  control  over  a  part  only  of  the  subject ;  another  portion 
falls  exclusively  within  the  province  of  chancery  courts,  who  treat 
executors  and  administrators  as  trustees ;  while  yet  another  ele- 
ment of  the  functions  of  these  officers  is  dealt  with  in  the  courts  of 
common  law.  However  incongruous  such  a  system  might  have 
been  recognized  to  be,  and  however  strongly  a  change  might 
have  been  desired,  the  conservative  spirit  of  the  Eng-  ^ 

111  <.  Circumstances 

lish  people  and  the  peculiarity  of  the  English  con-  retardins  re- 
stitution are  unfavorable  to  reform  in  this  direction,  mentary  courts 
Prescriptive  rights  and  prerogatives  are  tenaciously  '"  ^'"»'''*"*^' 
adhered  to.  The  habits,  customs,  and  practices  of  the  people,  the 
bar,  and  the  bench  represent  a  vis  inertice  to  overcome  which  the 
impetus  must  be  powerful  indeed.  The  statute  creating  the  new 
Court  of  Probates,  thereby  abrogating  the^  secular  jurisdiction 
of  the  spiritual  courts,  strongly  illustrates  the  intense  conserva- 
tism of  even  the  legislative  branch  of  the  English  government, 
in  the   pension  which  it  was  found   necessary  to  grant  to  the 

1  Ante,  §  11. 
VOL.  I.  —  21  • 


822  NATURE   OF    PROBATE   COURTS    IN    AMERICA.  §  142 

bishops  and  archbishops,  and  even  to  the  proctors  practising  in 
these  courts,  to  compensate  them  for  the  loss  of  their  lucrative 
privileges. 

But  in  America  circumstances  have  been  peculiarly  favorable  to 
the  rational  development  of  this  principle.  Ecclesiastical  courts 
r,-        ,  with  secular  powers  did  not  exist.     Prerogatives  and 

Circumstances  -i  fc 

fuvonnf;  (level-  prescriptive  rights  were    swept  awav  bv  the   repub- 

oiniieiit  olthe       f.  \  ,  i  mi        i  i' 

i)iin(ipie  un-      licau  Spirit  of  the  people.     The  legislatures  were,  un- 
i.ate  comts^n     hampered  by  the  traditions  and  customs  of  the  mother 
menca.  country,  armed  with  full  authority  to  carry   out  the 

views  and  convictions  of  the  people,  who  thus  exerted  a  con- 
trolling influence  in  shaping  the  law  and  regulating  the  prac- 
tice of  managing  and  settling  estates  of  deceased  persons  and 
minors ;  for  no  branch  of  the  law  concerns  the  general  public  so 
universally,  and  affects  their  interest  so  directly,  as  this.  The 
consequence  has  been  a  rapid  development  of  the  law  of  admin- 
istration, particularly  in  those  States  which  early  cut  loose  from 
the  common  law  doctrines  in  this  respect.  The  American  courts 
of  probate,  with  their  extensive  powers,  their  simple  and  efficient 
procedure,  their  happy  adaptation  to  the  wants  of  the  people 
ill  the  safe,  speedy,  and  inexpensive  settlement  of  the  estates 
of  deceased  persons,  attest  the  marvellously  clear  insight  of  the 
people  of  the  Colonies  and  young  States  into  the  principles  in- 
volved, and  the  genuine  instinct  which  guided  them  in  their 
realization.  Necessarily  diverse  in  their  details,  as  the  systems 
of  the  several  States  cannot  but  be,  since  each  State  enacts  its 
own  code,  there  is  a  common  intendment  of  them  all  in  the  direc- 
tion of  recognizing  the  law  of  administration  as  a  distinct,  inde- 
pendent branch  of  jurisdiction,  based  upon  and  determined  by  its 
own  inherent  principles.  The  rich  and  manifold  experiences  of 
a  century  of  unexampled  national  growth  and  development  have 
tended  to  mould  these  systems  in  the  national  spirit  common  to 
nil  the  States  ;  as  each  is  the  reflex  of  the  nation,  so  their  insti- 
tutions are  rapidly  assimilating  into  a  national  system,  in  which 
the  incongruities  incidental  to  the  experimental  enactments  of  the 
several  and  indepenrdent  legislatures  are  gradually  disappearing 
before  the  light  of  common  experience  and  intelligent  discussion. 
§  142.  American  Statutes  the  only  Source  of  Probate  Po-wers  in 
the  States.  —  We  have  seen  that  by  the  common  law  the  entire 
scope  of  jurisdiction  over  the  estates  of  deceased  persons  vested 


142  STATUTES    THE   SOURCE   OF    PROBATE   POWERS.  323 


in  the  ecclesiastical,  common  law,  and  chancery  courts.^     Ilencc, 
there  being  no  ecclesiastical  courts  in  America,  all  such  jurisdic- 
tion, in  so  far  as  it  became  a  part  of  the  juridical  system  of  the 
States,  necessarily  vested  in  the  common  law  and  chancery  courts, 
to  the  extent  in  which  it  was  not  lodged  elsewhere  by  statute. 
It  follows  from  this,  tliat  although  in   many  of  the  probate  courts 
States  the  constitution  establishes  or  provides  for  the  ei'Voir/ule""^' 
establishment  of  courts  of  probate,  yet  they  take  all  »'"'"'«• 
their  powers  from  the  statutes  regulating  them.^     From  this  cir- 
cumstance arises  an  important  rule  to  be  observed  in  Hence  they 
ascertaining  the  extent  of  power  lodged  in  any  one  of  such  povvers  as 
this  class  of  courts :   they  can  exercise  such  powers  emier'ex-'^^ 
only  as  are  directly  conferred  upon  them  by  legisla-  {Je^g«l:arv  ^^ 
tive  enactment,^  or  necessary  to  carry  out  some  power  implication; 
so  conferred.*     Unless  a  warrant  for  the  exercise  of  jurisdiction 
in  a  particulfir  case  can  be  found  in  the  statute,  given  eitlier  ex- 
pressly  or  by  implication,  the  whole    proceeding  is  but  jurisdiction 

..r,,        ,  ..,.,.  .  f.  ,  con  ferrod  over 

vonl;^  but  where  jurisdiction  is  conierred   over  any  any  sui)ject 
subject  matter,  and  it  becomes  necessary  in  the  ad-  wiThTt  au'^pow- 
iudication  thereof   to  decide  collateral    matters  over  f '*  "^'''^a'y 

J  _  to  anjudicate 

which   no  jurisdiction  has  been  conferred,  the  court  thereon, 
must,  of  necessity,  decide  such  collateral  issues.*^ 

The  courts  so  created  took  various  names.     In  many  of  the 
States  they  are  known  as  Probate  Courts,  or  Courts  of  Probate, 
which  is  also  the  name  given  to  the  English  court  ere-  Courts  of  pro- 
ated   in   1857,  to  which  the  jurisdiction   previously  timf  k",',owirby 
exercised  by  ecclesiastical,  manorial,  and  other  courts 


various  names. 


1  Ante,  §  140.  clause  in  the  Revised  Statutes  was  accord- 

-  Tucker  v.  Harris,  13  Ga.  1,  8;  Mc-  ingly  repealed,  and  tlie  exercise  of  neces- 

Phcrson  v.  CunlHf,  11  S.  &  R.  422,  429;  sary   incidental   powers   restored  to  the 

Russell  y.  Lewis,  3  Oieg.  380;  Pennisson  surrogates:    Laws,   1837,   p.    536,   §   71  j 

V.  Pennisson,  22  La.  An.  131;  Pelham  r.  Sipperly  v.  Raucus,  24  N.  Y.  46;  In  re 

iMurray,  04  Tex.  477,  481.  Verplnnck,  91  N.  Y.  439,  450. 

^  Erwin   v.   Lowry,   1   La.   An.   276  ;  »  Hijlgs  ''•  Crag<i,  89  N.  Y.  479,  489 ; 

Brittin  v.  Phillips,   1  Demarest,  57,  59;  nor   does  the  consent   of  parties  confer 

Snyder's  Appeal,  30  Pa.  St.  160.  jurisdiction  :    Tlieller   i:    Such,   57    Cal. 

^  In  New  York  the  attempt  was  made,  447,  459;  Sibley  v.  Waffle,  10  N.  Y.  180, 

by  the  Kevised  Statutes  of  1830,  to  limit  185;  Sitzman  v.  Pacquette,  13  Wis.  291, 

tlie  surrogates  to  the  exercise  of  expressly  305 ;  Leman  v.  Sherman,  18  111.  App.  368 ; 

conferred  powers.     But  it  was  found  that  s.  c.  117  111.  657. 

the   exercise   of   incidental  powers   was  "^  Otherwise  the  end  would  be  conceded 

essential   to   the    due    administration   of  without  the  means  :  BaiUio  ?•.  Wilson,  5 

justice  :  Dayton  on  Surr.  4 ;  Pew  v.  Has-  Mart.  n.  s.  214,  217  ;  Lawson  ?•.  Ripley,  17 

lings,  1  Barb.  Ch.  4.52.     The  restrictive  La.  238,  249;  Estate  of  Altemus,  32  La. 


£24  NATURE  OF   PKOBATE   COURTS   IN   AMERICA.  §  143 

of  testamentary  jurisdiction  was  transferred.  This  term  is  in- 
dicative of  one  of  the  chief  and  characteristic  elements  of  their 
powers,  and  is  used  in  tliis  treatise  to  designate  all  courts  of  this 
class,  being  at  once  the  most  convenient,  familiar,  and  accurate.^ 
In  other  States  they  are  called  Orphan's  Courts,^  Ordinaries  or 
Courts  of  Ordinary,^  Surrogates,*  Prerogative  Courts,'^  Registers  ® ; 
while  in  many  of  them  the  jurisdiction  is  conferred  upon  courts 
of  plenary  powers,'  or  upon  the  county  courts,^  all  of  which,  how- 
ever, are  known  as  courts  of  probate  jurisdiction  when  acting 
upon  testamentary  matters,  and  are  then  governed  by  the  princi- 
ples and  rules  of  such,  and  not  by  their  method  of  procedure 
when  acting  as  common  law,  chancery,  or  county  courts.^ 

§  143.  Their  Dignity  as  Courts. — In  consequence  of  the  statu- 
tory origin  of  courts  of  probate,  they  have  been  said  to  be  courts 
of  limited,^^  inferior,^^  special  and  limited,^^  limited  though  not 
special,^^  or  limited  though  not  inferior  jurisdiction.^.*  The  result 
Judgments  of  this  peculiarity,  i.  e.  their  lack  of  all  power  save 
factfclnfer'-^^  as  Conferred  by  statute,  has  been,  in  some  of  the 
rinfijurisdic-     Statcs,  to  deprive  their  judgments  and  decrees  of  all 

tion  appear  ■>  r  j       o 

of  record.  Validity  uulcss  the  facts  upon  which  their  jurisdiction 

depends  appear  affirmatively  from  the  face  of  their  proceedings,^^ 

An.  364,  369;   Hinckley's  Estate,  ]\Iyr.  9  Wells  v.  Smitli,  44  Miss.  296,  304. 

189:   Crooks'  Estate,  Myr.  247  ;   Fowler  i»  Erwin  v.  Lowry,  1  La.  An.  276,  278; 

r.   Lockwood,  3  Rerlf.    465;    Hyland  v.  Snyder's  Appeal,  36  Pa.  St.  166  ;  Gallman 

Baxter,  98  N.  Y.  610,  616.  r.  Gallman,  5  Strobh.  L.  207  ;  Brodess  v. 

1  It  is  used  in  tlie  statutes  of  Alabama,  Tliompson,  2  Harr.   &   G.  120;  People's 

California,  Connecticut,  Illinois,  Kansas,  Bank  v.  Wilcox,  15  R.  I.  258. 

Maine,   Massacliusetts,    Michigan,    Min-  '^  Townsend  v.  Gordon,  19  Cal.  188. 

nesota,    Missouri,    Nebraska,    and    New  ^'-^  Potwine's   Appeal,   31    Conn.    381 ; 

Hampshire.  Wood  v.  Stone,  39  N.  H.  572;  Peoples. 

-  In  Delaware,  Maryland,  New  Jersey,  Corlies,   1  Sandf.  228,  247;  Hendrick  v. 

and  Pennsylvania.  Cleaveland,  2  Vt.  329,  337. 

3  In  Georgia.  13  Qbert  v.  Hammel,  18  N.  J.  L.  73,  79 ; 

*  In  New  York  and  New  Jersey.  Plume  v.  Howard  Savings  Institution,  46 

5  New  Jersey.  N.  J.  L.  211,  229. 

6  In  Delaware,  Maryland,  New  Jerse.v,  i*  Cody  v.  Raynaud,  1  Col.  272,  277  ; 
and  Pennsylvania.  Turner  v.  Malone,  24  S.  C.  398,  401. 

"  Such  as  District  Courts,  as  in  Ne-  ^^  Kemp  v.  Kenned^',  Pet.  C.  C.  30,  36, 
vada  ;  Circuit  Courts,  as  in  Arkansas,  In-  Washington,  J.,  announcing  that  "courts 
diana,  and  Iowa  ;  Chancery  Courts,  as  in  of  limited  jurisdiction  must  not  only  act 
Mississippi  and  Tennessee.  In  North  within  the  scope  of  their  authority,  but 
Carolina  probate  jurisdiction  is  in  the  it  must  appear  upon  the  face  of  their  pro- 
Clerk  of  the  Superior  Court,  as  an  inde-  ceedings  that  they  did  so,  and  if  this 
pendent  and  original  tribunal :  Edwards  does  not  appear,  all  that  they  do  is  coram 
V.  Cobb,  95  N.  C.  4.  non  judlce,  and  void  ";  Turner  v.  Bank  of 

8  In  Colorado,  Florida,  Kentucky,  and  North  America,  4  Ball.  8,  11.     Both  of 

Illinois.  these  cases  arose  in  federal  courts,   de-.^ 


§  143  THEIR   DIGNITY    AS   COURTS.  325 

But  this  view  does  not  seem  sound  on  principle ;  it  ig-  This  doctrine 
nores  the  character  of  these  tribunals  as  courts,  and  the  appifcrbk  in 
necessity  that  their  judgments  and  decrees  should  be  America, 
binding,  as  authoritative  announcements  of  the  law,  upon  all  the 
world.  It  is  held  that  federal  courts,  although  of  limited  jurisdic- 
tion, are  not  inferior  courts  in  the  technical  sense ;  and  that  their 
judgments,  although  reversible  by  writ  of  error  or  appeal,  are 
binding,  although  the  jurisdiction  be  not  alleged  in  the  pleadings.^ 
The  doctrine  that  judgments  of  probate  courts  are  void  unless 
the  facts  upon  which  their  jurisdiction  depends  appear  of  record, 
arose  probably  from  the  necessity  of  the  application  of  such  a  rule 
to  the  ecclesiastical  courts  of  England,  whose  jurisdiction  is  ex- 
ceedingly limited,  which  were  not  courts  of  record,  possessed  no 
means  of  enforcing  their  judgments  or  decrees,^  and  whose  exer- 
cise of  jurisdiction  was  jealously  scanned  by  the  temporal  courts 
to  guard  against  encroachment  and  usurpation.  No  one  of  these 
reasons  exists  in  the  United  States.^  Courts  of  probate  in  Amer- 
ica are  entitled  to  the  sanction  which  every  court  of  record 
holds;*  they  are  not  to  be  classed  with  those  tribunals  which 
have  no  authority  beyond  special  powers  for  the  performance  of 
specific  duties,  little  or  in  no  wise  relating  to  the  general  adminis- 
tration of  justice,  whose  modes  of  proceeding  are  prescribed  by 
the  statute,^  but  are  of  that  class  of  courts  whose  judgments,  like 
those  of  the  federal  courts,  are  held  good  without  a  recital  of  the 
facts  upon  which  they  rest.^  The  subject  of  the  validity  of  judg- 
ments and  decrees  of  probate  courts  is  more  fully  considered 
hereafter.'^ 

scribing  them  as  limited,  but  not  inferior  p.  147)  :  Davie  v.  McDaniel,  47  Ga.  195> 

courts.      Tlie  following  cases  originated  200. 

in   probate   courts  :    Lii)e    v.  Mitchell,  2  ^  Such   as  commissioners,    surveyors, 

Yerg.  400,  404  ;  Overseers  v.  Gullifer,  49  appraisers,    committees,    directors,   over- 

Me.  360;  Dakin  o.  Hudson,  6  Cow.  221,  seers,  and  the  like:  Obert  v.  Hammel,  18 

224  ;  Potwine's  Appeal,  81  Conn.  381,  383.  N.  .1.  L.  7-3,  79. 

1  Skillcrn  v.  May,  6  Cr.  267 ;  McCor-  o  Grignon  v.  Astor,  2  How.  319,  342 
mick  V.  SuUivant.  10  Wheat.  192,  199.  Thompson    o.   Tolmie,  2   Pet.   157,  165 

2  See  ante,  §  139.  Shroyer  v.  Richmond,  16  Oh.  St.  4-55,  464 

3  Tucker  v.  Harris,  per  Lumpkin,  J.,  People  ?•.  Gray,  72  111.  343,  347 ;  Johnson 
13  Ga.  1,8;  Fisher  v.  Bassett,  9  Leigh,  v.  Benzley,  65  Mo.  250,  254;  Martin  v. 
119,  131;  Adams  v.  Adams,  22  Vt.  50,  57.  Robinson,  67  Tex.  .368.  .374;   Acklen  v. 

4  McPherson  r.  Cunliff.  11  S.  &  R.  422,  Goodman,  77  Ala.  521  ;  Plume  v  Howard 
429  ;  Hahn  v.  Kelly,  .34  Cal.  .391.  See  Savings  Institution,  46  N.  J.  L.  211,  228. 
Tucker  v.  Harris,  supra,  in  which  Judge  By  statute  in  Rhode  Island  :  Angell  ". 
Lumpkin  appealed  to  the  lesrislature  for  Angell,  14  R.  I.  541 ;  but  see  People's 
an  ai't  so  declaring,  which  respt>nded  to  Bank  v.  Wilcox,  15  R.  I.  258,  260. 

the  call  by  act  of  1856    (Acts.  1855-56,  ''  Po.s^  §  145. 


326  NATURE    OF    PROBATE   COURTS    IN    AMERICA.  §  144 

§  144.    Their  Powers  as   Judicial  Tribunals.  —  They  are  ill   lliust, 

if  not  all,  of  the  States  courts  of  record/  havin<^  a  public  seal 

and  a  clerk,  or  authority  in  the  iudoe  to  act  as  clerk, 

General  powers  '  .  . 

of  probaie  organized  process,  and  executive  officers,  as  well  as 
stated  terms  and  continuing  functions.  Within  the 
field  of  their  jurisdiction  they  are  as  much  a  branch  of  the  judi- 
ciary of  the  State  as  any  court  of  general  or  plenary  powers.^  As 
judicial  tribunals  they  have  the  inherent  power  of  such  to  punish 
.  ,  ,        for  contempt    to   the   same   extent   as   common   law 

to  punish  for  '■ 

contempt  and     courts,^  to  compcl  obediciice  to  their  orders  and  de- 

compel  obedi-  -,    ,t      •       •     ^  ,  ii  -ji  •       .i      • 

ence  to  their  crecs,'*  and  their  judgments  upon  matters  within  their 
jurisdiction  are  enforced,  usually,  by  the  same  means 
which  are  at  the  disposal  of  common  law  and  chancery  courts.^ 
Their  orders,  judgments,  and  decrees  are  therefore  as  conclusive 
upon  the  parties  to  the  record,  until  reversed  or  annulled  on  ap- 
peal, writ  of  error,  or  direct  proceeding  in  chancery  for  fraud,  as 
decrees  in  chancery  or  iudgmcnts  at  law  ;^  but  if  want 

Their  judg-  \  ■,         ■  r     ,  i 

nients  are  void  of  jurisdiction  appears  from  the  lace  of  the  proceed- 
jurisdiction  ings,  they  are,  like  the  judgments  of  any  court  under 
appear;  y^^^  circumstanccs,  merely  void.^     Thus  it  has  been 

said  by  very  high  authority  on  questions  of   probate  law,  that 
„     jurisdiction  of  the  subject  matter  is  to  be  tested  by  the 

but  collaterally    ">  •'  o  ■  ^ 

conclusive         authorized  extent  of  the  powers  of  the  court  m  regard 

to  the  alleged  cause  of  action ;  and  if  the  court  had 

power  to  try  that,  did  try  it,  and  pronounced  judgment  thereon, 

the  question  cannot  again  be  tried  in  another  court.^     It  is  how- 

1  Shroyeri;.  Richmond,  16  Oh.  St.  455,  St.  508,  512;  Caruth  v.  Anderson,  24 
464;  Chase  I).  Whiting,  30  Wis.  544,  547;  Miss.  60;  Yoeman  v.  Younger,  83  Mo. 
Milan  v.  Pemberton,  12  Mo.  602  ;  Tebbets     424,  429. 

V.  Tilton,  24  N.  H.  120,  124;  Dayton  v.  «  Watson  v.  Hutto,  27  Ala.  513 ;  Dick- 

Mintzer,  22  Minn.  393;  Turner  y.  Malone,  inson  y.  Hayes,  31  Conn.  417,  422 ;  Tomp- 

24  S  C.  398,  401.  kins  v.  Tompkins,  1  Sto.  547;   Jones  v. 

2  Obert  I'.  Haramel,  18  N.  J.  L.  73 ;  Coon,  5  Sm.  &  M.  751,  767 ;  Bryant  v. 
Miller  v.  Iron  County,  29  Mo.  123.  Allen,  6  N  H.  116 ;  Granbery  v.  Mhoon, 

3  Bac.  Ab.,  tit.  Courts  and  their  ju-  1  Dev.  L.  456;  Brovpn  v.  Gibson,  1  N.  & 
risdiction,  E;  Chess's  Appeal,  4  Pa.  St.  McC.  326,  328;  Cummings  v.  Cummings, 
52,  54.  123  Mass.  270,  273;   Dayton  v.  Mintzer, 

4  In  re  Brinson,  73  N.  C.  278,  280;  22  Minn.  39.3,  394;  Mercer  v.  Hogan,  4 
Seaman  v.  Duryea,  11  N.  Y.  324 ;  Tome's  Mackey,  520,  527. 

Appeal,  60  Pa.  St.   285,  295  ;    People  v.  '  Mohr    v.    Tulip,    40    Wis.   66,   76  ; 

Marshall,  7  Abb.  N.  Cas.  380;  Sherry's  Epping  v.  Robinson,  21  Fla.  36,  49. 

Estate,  7  Abb.  N.  Cas.  390;  Stratton  v.  »  Bradford,  S.,  in  Black   v.  Black,  4 

McCandliss,  32  Kans.  512,516;  Ex  parte  Bradf.  174,  204,  citing  Bissell  v.  Briggs, 

Hayes,  88  Ind.  1,  5.  9  Mass.  462  ;    Williams  v.  Robinson,  63 

5  McLaughlin  v.  McLaughlin,  4  Oh.  Tex.  576,  581,  citing  earlier  Texas  cases. 


§  145  I>OWEUS   AS  JUDICIAL  TUlliCTNALS.  S^7 

ever  asserted,  ou  the  other  hand,  that,  where  courts  of  probate 
are  courts  of  limited  jurisdiction,  a  distinction  is  to  be  drawn 
between  their  judgment  on  a  fact  which  may  be  decided  without 
deciding  the  case  on  its  merits,  —  such  judgment  being  collaterally 
assailable  although  the  jurisdictional  fact  is  averred  of  record  and 
was  actually  found  upon  evidence  heard  by  the  court,  —  and  judg- 
ment on  a  fact  involved  in  the  gist  of  the  suit,  so  that  it  cannot 
be  decided  without  involving  the  merits,  which  judgment  is  col- 
laterally conclusive.^ 

Although  these  courts  are  courts  of  record,  it  does  not  follow 
that  they  recognize  an  "  attorney  of  record."  Parties  in  interest 
may  appear  in  person,  by  agent,  or  attorney  at  law;  They  are  courts 
they  may  appear  by  one  attorney  at  one  hearing,  and  oni'iiv,''b'ut'''^"" 
by  another  on  the  next.      Notice  or  process  served  up-  ''eys'iize  no 

•'  1  L      attorney  of 

on  an  attorney  is  of  no  more  avail  than  if  served  upon  record. 
a  stranger,  unless  the  party  respond  to  the  notice  or  summons.^ 

§  145.  Conclusiveness  of  their  Judgments  in  Collateral  Proceed- 
ings.—  The  development  and  growth  of  the  jurisdiction  of  courts 
of  probate  in  the  United  States  has  o-iven  occasion  to  ti      .  -  . 

^_  c'  Uncertainty 

considerable  divergence  in  the  authorities  on  the  ques-  whether  ju'dg- 

.       .  ments  are 

tion  whether  their  judgments  are  conclusive,  or  im-  assailable 
peachable  collaterally.  The  uncertainty  produced  by  '^^  "*  ^^"^  ^' 
the  vacillation  of  courts  in  this  respect  is  not  only  perplexing  to 
the  administrators,  practitioners,  and  judges,  but  injurious  and 
sometimes  ruinous  to  the  interests  of  all  persons  concerned  in  the 
administration  of  estates ;  and  particularly  to  the  purchasers  of 
real  estate  sold  under  the  order  of  probate  courts,  who  sometimes 
lose  the  fruits  of  their  purchase  because  the  officers  of  the  court 
are  not  sufficiently  skilled  or  careful  to  let  the  record  show  all 
jurisdictional  facts  ;  and  to  the  heirs  or  creditors,  because  the 
risk  incurred  by  purchasers  depresses  the  price  of  the  property  at 
the  sale. 

On  principle  there  seems  to  be  no  difficulty  attending  the  ques- 
tion, except,  perhaps,  to  ascertain  whether  the  tribunal  intrusted 
with  jurisdiction  in  probate  matters  is  a  court,  with 

7 .    .    7    ,  -  •      X 1  Principle  of 

J  uaieial  functions  in  the  common  law  sense,  or  whether  collateral 
its  functions  are  miyiisterial  only,  or  having  no  author.  "^"""^  ""iveness. 

1  People's   Bank  v.  Wilcox,  15  R.   I.    ject  is  more  fully  treated  in  the  sections 
258,  contaliiinij  an  extensive  collection  of    injm. 
American  cases  on  this  point     The  sub'  '^  Hoes  v.  Halsey,  2  Dem.  577. 


328  NATURE   OF    PROBATE    COURTS    IN   AMERICA.  §  145 

ity  beyond  special  powers  for  the  performance  of  specific  duties 
not  relating  to  the  general  administration  of  justice.^  If  tlic 
latter  be  the  case,  it  is  obvious  that,  to  give  validity  to  its  acts,  it 
must  affirmatively  appear  that  everything  necessary  to  such  end 
has  been  observed.  But  if  it  be  found  that  the  tribunal  is  one 
competent  to  decide  whether  the  facts  in  any  given  matter  confer 
jurisdiction,  it  follows  with  inexorable  necessity  that,  if  it  decides 
that  it  has  jurisdiction,  then  its  judgments  within  the  scope  of  the 
subject  matters  over  which  its  authority  extends,  in  proceedings 
following  the  lawful  allegation  of  circumstances  requiring  the 
exercise  of  its  power,  are  conclusive  against  all  the  world,  unless 
reversed  on  appeal,  or  avoided  for  error  or  fraud  in  a  direct  pro- 
ceeding. It  matters  not  how  erroneous  the  judgment:  being  a 
judgment^  it  is  the  laio  of  that  case,  pronounced  by  a  tribunal 
created  for  that  purpose.  To  allow  such  judgment  to  be  ques- 
tioned or  ignored  collaterally,  would  be  to  ignore  practically,  and 
logically  to  destroy,  the  court.  And  it  is  not  necessary  that  the 
facts  and  circumstances  upon  which  the  jurisdiction  depends  shall 
appear  upon  the  face  of  their  proceedings,  because,  being  compe- 
tent to  decide,  and  having  decided,  that  such  facts  exist  by  assum- 
ing the  jurisdiction,  this  matter  is  adjudicated,  and  cannot  be 
collaterally  questioned.^ 

The  English  ecclesiastical  and  manorial  courts  were  not  courts 
in  the  common  law  sense,  — "they  did  not  proceed  according  to 
the  common  law,"— hence  the  English  rule  requiring  them  to 
show  jurisdictional  facts  on  the  face  of  their  proceeding. 

Many  of  the  American  courts  of  probate  were,  in  early  colonial 
times,  modelled  after  the  ecclesiastical  courts ;  hence  the  neces- 
sity of  the  same  rule  as  applicable  to  their  acts,  and  the  early 
American  cases  so  holding. 

In  the  progress  of  time,  however,  most  of  these  courts  were  re- 
modelled and  vested  with  greatly  increased  judicial  powers,  made 
courts  of  record,  etc.^  The  reform  was  initiated  and  carried  out 
by  the  legislative  branch  of  government,  —  the  only  one  having 
power  to  accomplish  it,  —  thus  compelling  the  judiciary  to  fol- 

1  j\^„te^  §  143.  that  the  same  rule  must  apply  to  judg- 

2  Wyatt  V.  Steele,  26  Ala,  639,650;  merits  of  inferior  courts),  295  e<  sp^.  ,•  Mor- 
Bostwick  V.  Skinner,  80  111.  147, 152  ;  Cox  ford  v.  Dieffenhacker,  54  Mich.  593,  605, 
i;.  Thomas,  0  Gratt.  323  (announcing  the  citing  earlier  Michigan  cases. 

rule  in  the  case  of  Circuit  Courts),  325  et  "  See  ante,  §§  141-144. 

seq. ;  State  v.  Scott,  1  Bai.  294  (showing 


§  145  JUDGMENTS    IN   COLLATERAL    PROCEEDINGS. 


329 


low  ;  and  it  is  but  natural,  perhaps,  that  they  followed  reluctantly. 
Lawyers  and  judges  were  equally  imbued  with  the  doctrines  of 
the  common  law  which  ignored  the  ecclesiastical  courts  as  judicial 
tribunals ;  and  they  found  it  difficult  to  assign  to  the  American 
probate  courts  a  different  status.  And  since  the  enlargement  of 
their  powers  emanated  from  as  many  different  sources  as  there 
are  States,  and  proceeded  in  as  many  different  channels,  it  is  not 
strange  that  for  a  long  time  there  was  very  great  divergence  in 
their  decisions.  It  is  gratifying  to  observe,  however,  that,  while 
unanimity  has  by  no  means  been  attained,  yet  tlie  magnitude  of 
the  divergence  is  gradually  diminishing,  in  the  proportion  in 
which  the  principle  upon  which  these  courts  rest  is  understood 
and  practically  realized. 

Thus  it  is  denied  by  the  federal  courts  that  courts  of  probate 
are  in  any  technical  sense  inferior  courts,^  and  their  judgments 
within  the  sphere  of  their  jurisdiction  are  as  conclusive  ^^^^.^_^  holding 
as  those  of  the  circuit  or  any  other  general  court,  and  judgments  of 

JO  pri)b;ite  courts 

entitled  to  the  same  intendments  and  presumptions  m  unassaiiaijie 

r^.  -.  ••11T-A11  r    collaterallj% 

their  favor.     The  same  doctrme  is  held  in  Alal)ama,- 
Arkansas,^  California,*  Connecticut,^  Florida,^  Georgia,"  Illinois,^ 
Indiana,^  Iowa,io  Kansas,"  Kentucky ,12  Louisiana,^^  Maine,i'*  Michi- 

1  Grignon  v.  Astor,  2  How.  319,  341  ;  Williams,  76  111.  175 ;  Andrews  v.  Bern- 
McNitt  V.  Turner,  16  Wall.  852,  366;  hardi,  87  111.  365;  Goodbody  v.  Good- 
Cornett  v.  Williams,  20  Wall.  226,  249.  body,  95  111.  456,  460;  McCormack  v. 
See  ante,  §  143.  Kimmel,  4  111.  App.  121,  124. 

2  Wyman  v.  Campbell,  6  Port.  219,  **  Dequindre  v.  Williams,  31  Ind.  444, 
244 ;  Perkins  v.  Winter,  7  Ala.  855,  863  ;  454. 

Field  V.  Goldsby,  28  Ala.  218,  224;  King  i"  Read  v.  Howe,  39  Iowa,  553,  559  et 

V.   Kent,  29   Ala.    542,   549 ;    Satcher   v.  se/j.,  citing  numerous  Iowa  cases  ;  Myers 

Satcher,   41    Ala.    26,   39;    Whorton    v.  u.  Davis,  47  Iowa,  325.     (See  tlie  case  of 

Moragne,  62  Ala.   201,    207;    Farley    v.  Cooper  v.  Sunderland,  3  Iowa,  114,  134, 

Dunklin,  76  Ala.  530;  Barclift  v.  Treece,  in  which  the  doctrine  announced  in  the 

77  Ala.  528,  531.  federal  cases  is  criticised.) 

3  Montgomery  v.  Johnson,  31  Ark   74,  "  Bryan  i'.  Bauder,  23  Kans.  95,  97. 
83;  Sturdy  v.  Jacoway,  19  Ark.  499,  514 ;  i-  Fletcher  v.  Wier,  7  Dana,  345,  347. 
Borden  v.  State,  11  Ark.  519,  525;  Rogers  (This  case  holds  the  assumption  of  juris- 
v.  Wilson,  13  Ark.  -507,  509.  diction  by  probate  courts  to  be  i>n ma  facie 

*  Hahn  v.  Kelly,  34  Cal.  391,  402.  evidence  of  the  jurisdictional  facts.) 

6  Dickinson  v.  Hayes,  31   Conn.  417,  ^^  Sizemore  v.  Wedge,  20  La.  An.  124; 

422;  Judson  v.  Lake,  3  Day,  318.  Barbee  r.  Perkins,  23  La.  An.  331 ;  Duck- 

6  Epping  V.  Robinson,  21  Fla.  36.  worth  v.  Vaughan,  27  La.  An.  599  ;  Green 

■7  McDade  v.  Burch,  7  Ga.  559,  562;  v.  Baptist  Church,  27  La.  An.  563;  Wis- 

Doe  V.  Roe,   30   Ga.   961 ;   Patterson  v.  dom  v.  Parker,  31  La.  An.  52. 

Lemon,  50  Ga.  231,  2-36.  "  Bent  r.  Weeks.  44  Me.  45, 47 ;  Record 

8  Iverson  v.  Loberg,  26  111.  179,  182;  v.  Howard,  58  Me.  225,  228. 

Moore  v.  Neil,  39  111.  256,  262 ;  Logan  v. 


330 


NATURE    OF   PROBATE   COURTS   IN    AMERICA. 


145 


gan,i  Mississippi,^  Missouri,^  New  Jersey,*  New  Hampshire,^ 
New  Yorlv,*^  North  Carolina,^  Ohio,^  Pennsylvania,^  South  Caro- 
lina,io  Texas,^^  Vcrmont,i2  Virginia,^^  and  Wisconsin.^*  The  re- 
verse has  been  held  in  many  of  these  States,  until  the 
suchjudKiiieiirs  law  was  changed  by  legislation,  or  until  the  courts, 
Tn  coUaurar^  ou  principle,  reversed  their  former  doctrine ;  but  in- 
proceeduigs.  gtances  are  not  wanting  in  which  the  doctrine  is  ruled 
both  ways  in  the  same  State,  under  the  same  statute,  and  under 
circumstances  presenting  no  essential  difference.  It  has  been 
held  that  substantial  compliance  with  the  statutory  requirements 
must  be  afhrmatively  shown  by  the  record  to  secure  the  validity  of 
judgments  of  probate  courts  against  collateral  assailability,  in  Cal- 
ifornia,i5  Colorado,!^  Massachusetts,^'  Mississippi,^^  Tennessee,!^ 
and  Wisconsin,-'^  beside  numerous  cases  involving  the  validity  of 
probate  powers,  where  the  owner  of  property  had  been  erroneously 
adjudged  to  be  dead.^^ 


1  Coon  V.  Fry,  6  Mich.  506,  508 ; 
"Woods  r.  Monroe,  17  Mich.  238  ;  Osman 
V.  Tra])liagen,  23  Mich.  80;  Alexander  v. 
Rice,  52  Mich.  451,  454. 

2  Jones  V.  Coon,  5  Sm.  &  M.  751,  767. 

3  Johnson  v.  Beazley,  65  Mo.  250  ; 
Camden  v.  Plain,  91  Mo.  117,  129;  Rott 
mann  v.  Sclimucker,  94  Mo.  139. 

*  Plume  V.  Howard  Savings  Institu- 
tion, 46  N.  J.  L.  211 ;  Obert  v.  Hammel, 
18  N.  J.  L.  7.3,  80. 

5  Merrill  r.  Harris,  26  N.  H.  142,  147  ; 
Kimball  r.  Fisk,  39  N.  H.  110  ;  Gordon  v. 
Gordon,  55  N.  H.  399,  401  et  seq. 

6  By  statute,  in  tins  State,  judgments 
of  probate  courts  (surrogates)  are  iield 
good  unless  sbown  to  be  without  jurisdic- 
tion, the  o»(/s  probanfli  resting  upon  those 
who  assail  the  validity  :  Wood  v.  Mc- 
Chesney,  40  Barb.  417,  421;  Forbes  w. 
Halsey,'  26  N.  Y.  53,  65  ;  Richmond  v. 
Foote",  8  Lans.  244,  253. 

^  Overton  v.  Cranford,  7  Jones  L. 
415. 

8  Shroyer  v.  Richmond,  16  Oh.  St. 
455,  465;  Sheldon  v.  Newton,  8  Oh.  St. 
494,  500,  citing  Ludlow  v.  Jolmston,  3  Oh. 
560;  Goforth  v.  Longworth,  4  Oh.  129; 
and  Adams  v.  Jeffreys,  12  Oh.  253. 

9  McPherson  v.  Cunliff,  11  S.  &  R.  422, 
432;  West  v.  Cochran,  104  Pa.  St.  482, 
488,  citing  earlier  Pennsylvania  cases. 


1'^  Turner  v.  Malone,  24  S.  C.  398. 

11  Lynch  v.  Baxter,  4  Tex.  431  ;  Poor 
V.  Boyce,  12  Tex.  440;  Dancy  v.  Strick- 
linge,  15  Tex.  557  ;  George  ;-.  Watson,  19 
Tex.  354, 369 ;  Hurley  v.  Barnard,  48  Tex. 
83,  87;  Guilford  v.  Love,  49  Tex.  715, 
739,  Pelham  v.  Murray,  64  Tex.  477; 
Martin  c.  Robinson,  67  Tex.  368. 

12  Tryon  r.  Tryon,  16  Vt.  31-3,  817; 
Doolittle  V.  Hokon,  28  Vt.  819,  823. 

13  Fisher  v.  Bassett,  9  Leigh,  119,  131. 
1-1  Gary,  Pr.  L.,  §  24,  citing  Barker  v. 

Barker,  14  Wis.  131,  147.  See  Portz  v. 
Schantz,  70  Wis.  497,  505. 

15  Haynes  v.  Meeks,  20  Cal.  288,  314 
et  seq. ;  Estate  of  Boland,  55  Cal.  310,  315. 

iti  Vance  v.  Maroney,  4  Col.  47. 

17  Holyoke  r.  Haskins,  5  Pick.  20  ;  s.  c. 
9  Pick.  259 ;  Thayer  v.  Winchester,  133 
Mass.  447. 

18  Learned  v.  Matthews,  40  Miss.  210. 
But  equity  will  grant  relief  to  avoid  in- 
justice ;  Gaines  i'.  Kennedy,  53  Miss.  103, 
109;  Hill  V.  Billingsly,  53  Miss.  Ill,  116. 

ii»  Hopper  V.  Fisher,  2  Head,  253,  257  ; 
Whitmore  v.  Johnson,  10  Humi)h.  610; 
Linnville  v.  Darby,  1  Baxt.  306,  311. 

20  Gibbs  V.  Shaw,  17  Wis.  197 ;  Howe 
V.  McGivern,  25  Wis.  525;  Blodgett  v. 
Hitt,  29  Wis.  169 ;  Chase  v.  Ross,  36  Wis. 
267, 275. 

21  As  to  which  see  post,  §  208  et  seq. 


§  14G  HOW   FAR   MAY    CORRECT    THEIR   JUDGMENTS.  331 

§  14G.  How  far  Probate  Courts  may  correct  their  Judgments.  — 
The  orders,  decrees,  and  judiiinents  of  proljute  courts,  probate  courts 
in  so  far  as  they  are  courts  of  record,  can  be  known  r|,'^^\j  JJy^^^ 
by  their  record  alone,^  which  necessarily  imports  al)S0-  ^,,i^i,  imports 
lute  verity,  and  can  neither  bo  questioned  nor  falsi-  a'«"i:Jt«  verity, 
ried;2  from  which  it  follows  that  the  court  is  bound  by  its  own 
record,  and  can  neither  change  nor  disregard  its  or-  ^^^^,  ^.^^^^^^^  ,^^ 
dors,  iudo-ments,  or  decrees  after  the  lapse  of  the  term  "lodiiied  after 

'  J       '^  '  '^         _  ^         the  close  01 

at  which  they  were  rendered.^     It  is  consistent  with  the  term, 
this  principle  that  it  is  the  duty  of  a  court,  if  the  judg-  But  the  record 
mcnt,  decree,  or  order  is  clearly  void  tor  the  want  oi  meats,  etc. may 
jurisdiction,  or  other  defect  apparent  from  the  record,    ^'■^^'^^  • 
to  vacate  the  same  upon  proper  application ;  *  hence  letters  of  ad- 
ministration obtained  by  fraud  may  be  revoked  and  granted  to 
otliors,°  and  probate  of  a  will  obtained  by  fraud  set  aside.*^     So  it 
was  held  that  probate  courts  have  power  to  reopen  a  former  decree, 
so  as  to  charge  the  administrator  with  advancements  and  assets 
omitted  from  the  decree.^     But  in  the  absence  of  statutory  grant 
of  power  to  open  orders  and  decrees,  or  to  grant  rehearing  to  liti- 
gants, they  have  no  power  to  revise  their  decisions  on  the  ground 
of  error,  either  of  law  or  fact;^  except,  as  will  be  more  fully 

1  Milan  v.  Pemberton,  12  Mo.  598;  obtained  thereby;  MuUanphy  v.  County 
Rutherford  u.  Crawford,  .53  Ga.  138,  143.  Court,  6  Mo.  563. 

2  Halin  r.  Kelly,  U  Cal.  391,  405;  «  Haraberlin  y.  Terry,  1  Sm.  &  M.  Ch. 
Shroyer  v.  Richmond,  16  Oh.  St.  455,  466  ;  589. 

Selin  V.  Snyder,  7  S.  &  R.  160.  172;  Ken-  '  On  the  ground  that  power  to  revise 

nedy  v.  Wachsmuth,  12  S   &  R.  171,  175;  previous  proceedings  are  incidental  to  all 

18  Vin.  Abr.,  t.  Record,  p.  178,  §  4.  courts  of  general  jurisdiction,   including 

3  Johnson  v.  Johnson,  26  Oh.  St.  357  ;  probate  courts,  to  which  this  power  is 
Alexander  v.  Nelson,  42  Ala.  462  ;  Bryant  peculiarly  necessary  :  Adams  v.  Adams, 
r.  Horn,  42  Ala.  490;  Wolf  v.  Banks,  41  21  Vt.  162,  100.  The  reasoning  employed 
Ark.  104,  107  ;  State  v.  Probate  Court,  83  does  not  seem  to  establish  either  the 
Minn.  94;  Browder  v.  Faulkner,  82  Ala.  necessity  or  the  wisdom  of  allowing  pro- 
257.  bate  courts  to  open  judgments  rendered 

■*  Johnson  v.  Johnson,  40  Ala  247,  251  at  a  former  term,  except  for  clearly  appur- 
(citing  Stickney  v.  Davis,  17  Pick.  109;  ent  lack  of  jurisdiction.  The  case  of 
Mobley  v.  Mobley,  9  Ga.  247  ;  and  other  French  v.  VVinsor,  24  Vt.  402,  407,  sorae- 
Alabauia  cases)  ;  Huntington  v.  Finch,  3  times  cited  in  support  of  the  .same  ])ropo- 
Oh.  St.  445,  448  (holding  the  power  to  va-  sition,  establishes  only  the  right  to  correct 
cate  for  irregularity  or  improper  cond act  in  annual  settlements  at  or  before  final  set- 
procuring  the  entry ) ;  McCabey.  Lewis,  76  tlement. 
Mo.  290,  301 ;  In  re  Gragg,  82  Minn.  142.  «  Daly,  J.,  acting  as  surrogate,  in  the 

5  Marston  1-.  Wilcox,  2  111.  60;  Perley  thoroughly    considered    case   of    Brick's 

V.   Sands,  3   Kdw.   Ch.  325,  328,  holding  Estate,  15  Abb.   Pr.    12,  30,  thus  states 

that  a  misstatement  of  facts  is  a  "false  his  resum<f  of   the  numerous    authorities 

representation"  under  the  statute,  author-  by    him   consulted:    "They    may    undo 

izing  the  surrogate  to  revoke  the  letters  what  has  been  done  through  fraud,  or 


332 


NATURE    OF    PROBATE    COURTS    IN    AMERICA. 


§146 


noticed  below,  during  the  continuance  of  the  term  at  which  they 
were  rendered.^ 

o. .  In  some  of  the  States,  however,  probate  courts  are 

In  some  States  '  ' 

probate  courts    authorized  by  statute  to  review,  set  aside,  annul,  or 

review  their  .  n  •  i 

judgments  for  alter  their  judgments,  on  proper  allegations,  by  parties 
mistake!  interested,  if   fraud   or  mistake  be  shown  ;2   and  in 

In  some,  power  otliers  tliis  powcr  is  held  to  inhere  in  probate  as  well 
here  in  probate  as  all  other  courts.^  In  New  York,  where  this  power 
courts.  |g  granted  by  statute,  it  is  held  that  the  party  com- 

plaining of  an  adverse  decision  should  be  denied  a  rehearing,  and 
left  to  his  remedy  by  appeal,  unless  he  can  bring  himself  squarely 
within  the  rules  laid  down  by  the  court  of  appeals  for  a  rehearing 
or  reargument  in  that  court ;  ^  "  the  power  is  undoubtedly  given 


upon  the  supposition  that  they  had  juris- 
diction, or  on  the  assumption  tliat  a  party 
was  dead  who  is  living,  or  that  there  was 
no  will ;  or  they  may  open  decrees  taken 
by  default,  or  correct  mistakes,  the  re- 
sult of  oversight  or  accident.  .  .  .  But 
when  all  the  parties  in  Interest  have  been 
represented  at  the  hearing,  and  the  court 
has  given  its  final  sentence  or  decree,  I 
know  of  no  authority  showing  that  these 
courts  liave  ever  exercised  the  general 
power  of  opening  and  reversing  it  again, 
upon  the  ground  that  they  had  erred  as 
to  the  law,  or  had  decided  erroneously 
upon  the  facts." 

1  Infra,  p.  333. 

2  See  post,  on  Final  Settlements.  In 
Mississippi,  where  it  had  been  held  that 
a  bill  of  review  would  not  lie  in  the  pro- 
bate court  (Farmers  &  Merchants'  Bank 
V.  Tappan,  5  Sm.  &  M.  112),  and  that  its 
judgments  and  orders  were  final  and  could 
not  be  set  aside  or  annulled  in  that  court 
at  a  subsequent  term  (Hendricks  v.  Hud- 
dleston,  5  Sm.  &  M.  422),  power  to  that 
effect  was  vested  in  probate  courts  by 
act  of  1846  :  Hooker  i-.  Hooker,  10  Sm. 
&  M.  599  ;  Austin  v.  Lamar,  23  Miss.  189. 
In  New  Jersey  the  statutory  provision 
making  settlements  conclusive  and  final 
"  except  wlien  fraud  or  mistake  can  be 
shown  to  the  satisfaction  of  the  court," 
is  held  not  to  clothe  the  court  with  a  dis- 
cretion merely,  V)ut  as  equivalent  to  a 
positive  enactment  depriving  the  judg- 
ment of  its  conclusive  character  if  fraud 
or  mistake  can  be   shown :   Crombie  v. 


Engle,  19  N.  J.  L.  82.  Similarly  in  New 
York :  Campbell  v.  Thatcher,  54  Barb. 
382;  Janssen  v.  Wemple,  3  Redf.  229; 
Matter  of  llawley,  36  Hun,  2-58,  2(30  ;  but 
see  s.  c.  104  N.  Y.  250,  259.  The  statute 
making  provision  for  the  correction  of 
accounts  of  executors  and  administrators, 
the  modes  of  correction,  and  the  remedies 
therein  prescribed,  must  be  followed : 
Johnson  v.  Johnson,  26  Oh.  St.  857,  364. 
See  also,  to  similar  effect,  McDermott  r. 
Hayes,  60  N.  H.  9. 

3  Adams  D.  Adams,  s«/7ra  ,•  Milne's  Ap- 
peal, 99  Pa  St.  483,  489  ;  Montgomery  v 
Williamson,  37  Md.  421,  428,  citing 
Raborg  v.  Hammond,  2  H.  &  G.  42,  51 ; 
Planters'  Bank  v.  Neely,  7  How.  (Miss.) 
80,  90 ;  Turnbull  v.  Endicott,  3  Sm.  &  M. 
302  ;  Bowers  v.  Hammond,  139  Mass. 
360,  365 ;  Vreedenburgh  v.  Calf,  9  Pai. 
128,  129;  Bronson  v.  Burnett,  1  Chand. 
136,  140  ;  Fortson  v.  Alford,  62  Tex. 
676,  579. 

4  Melcher  v.  Stevens,  1  Dem.  12-3,  130, 
quoting  from  Mount  v.  Mitchell,  32  N.  Y. 
702,  as  follows  :  "  Motions  for  reargument 
should  be  founded  on  papers  showing 
clearly  that  some  question  decisive  of 
the  case,  and  duly  submitted  by  counsel, 
has  been  overlooked  by  the  court ;  or 
that  the  decision  is  in  conflict  with  an  ex- 
press statute,  or  with  a  controlling  de- 
cision, to  which  the  attention  of  the  court 
was  not  drawn,  through  tlie  neglect  or 
inadvertence  of  counsel."  The  necessity 
for  such  a  rule  is  emphasized  by  the  sur- 
rogate, who  calls  attention  to  the  Ian- 


§  147  ENTERING    JUDGMENT    NUNC    PRO   TUNC.  333 

to  the  surrogate  to  open  a  decree,  even  after  the  time  for  appeal 
has  passed,  and  correct  a  palpable  mistake  if  the  moving  party 
shows  fraud,  deception,  or  excusable  negligence  in  connection 
with  the  alleged  error."  ^  The  grant  of  power  to  the  probate  court 
to  review  and  set  aside  its  orders  for  fraud  or  mistake  does  not 
deprive  a  superior  court  of  its  equity  power  in  the  matter.^ 

But  the  rule  applicable  to  all  common  law  courts,  that  during 
the  continuance  of  the  term  the  record  remains  in  the  breast  of  the 
iudge,^  and  the  record  as  well  as  the  judgment  itself        . 

J       o   1  JO  During  the 

mav  be  altered,  revised,  or  revoked,  as  well  as  amended  term  the  record 

-    ...      as  well  as  the 

in  respect  of  clerical  errors  and  matters  oi  lorm,^  is  iuaf,mient  itself 
equally  applicable  to  probate  courts.^    "  All  the  days  of  "'''^'  ^^  '^^'"' 
the  term  are  considered  as  one,  and  everything  is  in  the  power  of 
the  court  during  its  continuance."^     But  this  power  jf  notice  he 
must  not  be  exercised  unless  the  parties  to  be  affected  ^J^^'^"  .'^yc^ti 
are  present  in  court,  or  have  notice,  so  that  they  may  therehy. 
be  heard  if  they  desire  ;'^  and  the  presence  of  the  parties,  or  notice 
to  them,  must  appear  from  the  record  itself ;  no  presumption  of 
notice  arises  where  the  record  is  silent.^     Any  change  or  amend- 
ment must  also  be  upon  such  terms  as  will  protect  the  interests 
of  third  parties.^ 

§  147.  Entering  Judgment  Nunc  pro  Tunc.  —  The  power  to  re- 
cord a  judgment  or  order  at  any  time  after  it  was  rendered,  and 
to  correct  a  judgment  or  order  erroneously  entered.  Entering  or 
resides  in  the  probate  courts  equally  with  common  jud^nnent^  nawc 
law  courts.  This  power  originated  in  the  maxim,  p''"  '""''• 
that  "  an  act  of  the  court  shall  prejudice  no  one,"  ^^  or,  as  worded 
by  Freeman,  "  a  delai^  of  the  court  shall  prejudice  no  one,"  ^'  and 
was  originally  employed  to  relieve  parties  from  hardships  arising 
out  of  the  delay  of  courts,  by  entering  a  judgment  nune  pro  tunc 
as  of  the  day  on  which  it  ought  to  have  been  rendered  ;  but  is 

guageofDaly,  J.,  inCiirleyw.  Tomlinson,  ^  Moore   t-.   Moore,   1   Dev.  L.   352; 

5   Daly,   283,   and   cites  numerous  otlier  Caldwell  v.  Lockridge,  9  Mo.  362. 

New  York  cases.  ^  Caldwell  v.  Lockridge,  su^tra. 

1  Matter  of  Dev  Ermand,  24  Hun,  1,4.  »  Peake  r.  Redd,  14  Mo.  79  ;  Freem.  on 

2  Baker   i'.    O'Riordan,   65    Cal.  368  ;  Judgm.  §  72,  and  authorities  cited. 
Douglass    V.    Low,   36   Hun,    497,   600;  »  Ligon  r.  Rogers,  12  Ga.  281 ;  Perdue 
Griffith  V.  Godey,  113  U.  S.  89,  93.  v.  Bradshaw,  18  Ga.  287  ;  McCormick  v. 

8  Co.  Litt.,  260  a.  Wheeler,  36  111.  114,  119. 

i  Freem.  on  Judgm.  §  69,  and  author-  ^^  Broom's  Legal   Maxims,   Actus   Cti- 

ities  there  collected?  "'b  nemhiem  (jravablt,  p.  122;  Mitchell  v. 

5  Rottmann  v.  Schmucker,  94  Mo.  139,  Overman,  13  Otto,  62,  ()5. 

l^^  11  Freem.  on  Judgm.  §  56. 


334  NATURE   OF    PROBATE   COURTS   IN   AMERICA.  §  147 

now  resorted  to  for  the  purpose  of  entering  of  record  judgments 
rendered,  but  through  inadvertence  not  entered,  and  of  correcting 
judgments  erroneously  entered,  nunc  pro  tunc,  as  they  ought 
originally  to  have  been  entered  of  record. ^ 

There  is  some  difference  of  opinion  as  to  the  circumstances 
which  shall  be  sufficient  to  authorize  a  nunc  pro  tu7ic  entry. 
Upon  what  evi-  The  purpose  to  be  accomplished  is  salient  enough: 
^''"'^!,.?/!?l^"'  it  is  to  secure  a  true  record  of  the  precise  ruling 
may  b(!  made,  ^f  ^]^q  judge  as  Originally  pronounced,  in  cases  where 
the  record  is  silent,  or  inaccurate,  or  false.  But  the  question 
here  arising,  How  is  the  truth  of  the  entry  to  be  established  ?  is 
not  so  easily  answered.  To  allow  it  to  be  determined  by  parol 
evidence  is  to  assail  the  inviolable  character  and  conclusiveness 
of  the  record,  (without  which  there  can  be  neither  stability  of 
legal  rights,  nor  confidence  in  the  unbending  justice  and  integrity 
of  courts,)  by  subordinating  it  to  the  memory  of  witnesses  who 
may  be  produced  by  interested  parties.^  If,  on  the  otlier  hand, 
the  recollection  of  the  judge  were  alone  to  be  relied  on  for  the 
rectification  of  the  record,  the  rights  of  parties  would  be  placed 
absolutely  at  his  mercy :  confidence  in  the  verity  of  the  record 
must  be  impaired,  even  where  the  integrity  of  the  judge  is  un- 
doubted, for  his  very  anxiety  to  do  right  and  accomplish  justice 
exposes  him  to  the  danger  of  unconsciously  yielding  to  the  power- 
ful temptation  to  so  frame  the  nunc  pro  tunc  entry  as  to  conform 
the  judgment  to  his  conviction  of  what  it  ought  to  be,  —  a  convic- 
tion wrought,  it  may  be,  by  subsequently  developed  facts,  or  by 
maturer  consideration. 

1  Borer  v.  Chapman,  119  U.   S.  587,  nounced,  or  proceedings  actually  had,  in- 

596  ;    Mitchell   v.   Overman,   supra,   and  advertently  omitted  from  or  erroneously 

cases  cited  in  note,  p.  66.    The  practice  is  entered  of  record  ;  it  cannot  be  permitted 

now   firmly    established  as  reaching   all  to   supply   a   judgment   or   order  which 

oases  in  which  the  record  is  at  variance  might  or  ought  to  have  been,  but  in  real- 

with  the  judgment,  decree,  or  order  pro-  ity  was  not,  rendered  or  made;  Gray  v. 

nounced  by  the  judge  ;  and  no  principle  Brignardello,  1  Wall.  627,  636 ;   Fetters 

is  more  clearly  deducible  from  the  inhe-  '•.  Baird,  72  Mo.  389 ;  Turner  v.  Benoist, 

rent  quality  and  nature  of  courts  and  the  50  Mo.  145;  Howell   v.  Morelan,  78  III. 

requirements  of  justice  ;  for  upon  it  de-  162,  165.    Nor  can  an  appellate  or  revis- 

pends  the  power  of  courts  to  vindicate  ing  court  order  the  amendment,  but  only 

their  rulings  and  decisions  from  misstate-  the  court  before  which  the  original  pro- 

ment,  perversion,  or  corruption,  to  which  ceedings  were  had  :  Brooks?;.  Duckworth, 

otherwise    they    would    be    exposed   by  59  Mo.  48;  Walton  r.  Pearson,  85  N.  C. 

reason  of  inadvertence,  misconception,  or  34,  48 ;  Binns  v.  State.  35  Ark.  118,  119. 
bad  faith  of  clerical  officers.     But  it  must  ^  Perkins  i'.  Perkins.  "27  Ala.  479,  480. 

be  confined   to   judgments   actually    an- 


§  147  ENTERING    JUDGMENT   NUNC    PRO    TUNC.  335 

The  logical  and  safo  i-iilo  seems  to  be  that  laid  down  in  the 
English  statutes  on  this  subject. ^  To  relieve  from  the  rigor  of 
the  common  law,  which  interdicted  any  alteration  of  the  y.^f^w^h 
proceedings  after  they  had  become  a  record,  except  st^'"'"^- 
during  the  term  to  which  it  related,^  it  was  first  enacted  "  that 
by  the  misprision  of  a  clerk  ...  no  process  shall  be  annulled  or 
discontinued  by  mistaking  in  writing  one  syllable  or  letter  too 
much  or  too  little ;  but  as  soon  as  the  mistake  is  perceived  .  .  . 
it  shall  be  amended  in  due  form,  without  giving  advantage  to  the 
party  that  challcngeth  the  same,  because  of  such  misi)rision."3 
This  statute  was  held  to  apply  only  to  proceedings  before  judg- 
ment ;  it  was  subsequently  enacted  that  the  justices  have  power 
to  amend  the  record  and  process  as  well  after  as  before  judg- 
ment.* This  statute,  although  permitting  amendment  of  the 
record  after  judgment,  still  confined  it  to  "  a  syllable  or  letter." 
The  authority  to  amend  was  enlarged  by  a  later  statute,^  giving  the 
king's  judges  power  "to  examine  such  records,  process,  words, 
pleas,  warrants  of  attorney,  writs,  panels  or  return,  by  them  and 
their  clerks,  and  to  reform  and  amend  (in  affirmance  of  the  judg- 
ments of  such  records  and  processes)  all  that  which  to  them  in 
their  discretion  seemeth  to  be  misprision  of  the  clerks  therein,  .  .  . 
exce{)t  appeals,  indictments  of  treason,  and  of  felonies  and  the 
outlawries  of  the  same,  so  that  by  such  misprision  of  the  clerk 
no  judgment  shall  be  reversed  or  annulled.  And  if  any  record, 
process,  writ,  warrant  of  attorney,  return,  or  panel  be  certified 
defective,  otherwise  than  according  to  the  writing,  which  thereof 
remaineth  in  the  treasury,  courts,  or  places  from  whence  they 
are  certified,  the  parties,  in  affirmance  of  the  judgments  of  such 
record  and  process,  shall  have  advantage  to  allege  that  tlie  same 
writing  is  variant  from  the  said  certificate,  and  that  found  and 
certified,  that  the  same  variance  shall  be  by  the  said  judges  re- 
formed and  amended  according  to  the  first  writing." 

The  rule  deducible  from  these  statutes  is,  that  no  amendment 
of  the  record  can  be  made  unless  there  be  a  mistake  There  must  be 

...      poniethiiiET  in 

of  the  clerk,  and  something  in  tiie  record  by  which  the  record  to 
the  mistake  can  be  rectified.*^ 

1  Cited  by  Ray,  J ,  in  Makepeace  v.          «  9  Edw.  V.  St.  1,  c.  4. 

Lukens,  27  Ind  435,  437  et  seq.  »  g  Henry  VI.  c.  12. 

■^  Co.  Litt  2G0.  ^  Ray,   J.,   in   Makepeace   v.  Lukens, 

8  14  Edw.  III.  c.  6.  supra,    cites    1    Tidd,    713  ;     Wynne   v. 


336 


NATURE   OF   PROBATE   COURTS   IN    AMERICA. 


§147 


This  rule  is  adhered  to  in  the  federal  courts,^  and  in  the 
courts  of  Alabama,^  California,^  Georgia,*  Illinois,^  Indiana,^ 
Kentucky,'^  Maine,^  Mississippi,^  Missouri,!*^  Tennessee,^^  and 
Texas.^2  In  other  States,  entries  nunc  pro  tu7ic  are 
allowed  upon  parol  evidence,  or  upon  the  memory  of 
the  judge;  for  instance,  in  Connecticut,^^  Maryland,^* 
Massachusetts,!"  New  Hampshire,!^  New  York,i"  North 
Carolina,!^  Ohio,!'^  and  Wisconsin.^*^ 

The  correction  of  the  record  must  be  drawn  with  the  view  of 
protecting  the  rights  of  third  parties  acquired  by  virtue  of  the 


Where  nunc 
pro  /?«;f  entries 
may  be  made 
upon  parol  evi- 
dence or  mem- 
ory of  the 
judge. 


Thomas,  Willes  R.  563;  Ray  v.  Lister, 
Andrews,  351 ;  Bac.  Abr.,  tit.  Amend- 
ment, F  ;  Palm.  98  ;  Harecourt  v.  Bishop, 
Cro.  Eliz.  497 ;  and  Clietle  v.  Lees,  Car- 
thew,  167. 

1  Story,  J.,  in  Albers  v.  Whitney,  1 
Sto.  310,  312,  holding  that  a  mistake  in 
tiie  Christian  name  of  a  party,  if  not  ap- 
parent upon  some  part  of  the  record,  but 
established  by  aliande  evidence,  will  not 
authorize  an  amendment  of  the  record  ; 
Russell  V.  United  States,  15  Ct.  01.  168, 
171,  Drake,  C.  J.,  holding  that  clerical 
errors,  but  not  errors  in  the  judgment  itself, 
can  be  corrected  under  the  federal  statute, 
citing  Bank  of  the  United  States  v.  Moss, 
0  How.  (U.  S.)  31. 

2  Metcalf  r.  Metcalf,  19  Ala.  319  ; 
Dickens  v.  Bush,  23  Ala.  849 ;  Summer- 
sett  V.  Summersett,  40  Ala.  596 ;  Hudson 
V.  Hudson,  "20  Ala.  364. 

3  Morrison  v.  Dapman,  3  Cal.  255,  257  ; 
Swain  v.  Naglee,  19  Cal.  127  ;  De  Castro 
V.  Richardson,  25  Cal.  49,  53;  Smith  r. 
His  Creditors,  59  Cal.  267. 

*  Di.xon  V.  Mason,  68  Ga.  478,  480. 

5  Wallahan  v.  People,  40  111.  103. 

6  Jenkins  v.  Long,  23  Ind.  460;  Make- 
peace V.  Lukens,  27  Ind.  435. 

7  Davis  V.  Ballard,  7  T.  B.  Mon.  603, 
604;  Scroggln  v.  Scroggin,  1  J.  J.  Marsh. 
362,  364;  Bennett  v.  Tiernay,  78  Ky. 
580. 

«  Colby  V.  Moody,  19  Me.  Ill,  113  ; 
Wiiite  V.  Blake,  74  Me.  489,  493. 

9  Russell  V.  McDougall,  3  Sm.  &  M. 
234,  248 ;  Moody  v.  Grant,  41  Miss.  565. 

i'^  Priest  V.  McMaster,  52  Mo.  60,  62  ; 
Allen  V.  Sales,  56  Mo.  28,  85;  Blize  v. 
Castlio,  8  Mo.  App.  290,  294,  with 
numerous  cases  cited. 


11  State  V.  Fields,  Peck,  140,  141. 

12  Price  V.  Likens,  23  Tex.  635,  637. 
In  Burnett  v.  State,  14  Tex.  455,  it  is  held 
that  the  nunc  pro  tunc  entry  ma}'  be 
made  if  it  appear  to  the  satisfaction  of 
the  court  that  an  order  was  made  at  a 
former  term  and  omitted  to  be  entered  by 
the  court  or  clerk. 

13  Weed  V.  Weed,  25  Conn.  337,  Waite, 
J.,  holding  that  "  whether  there  was  a 
mistake  in  the  record  was  a  question  of 
fact  for  the  court  below,  to  be  established 
as  any  other  fact  in  a  court  of  justice,  by 
proper  evidence  "  :  p.  344. 

1*  Waters  v.  Engle,  53  Md.  179, 182,  on 
the  ground  that  in  such  case  the  court 
exercises  a  quasi  equitable  power,  ac- 
cording to  tlie  facts  and  circumstances 
of  the  case ;  Kemp  v.  Cook,  18  Md.  130, 
138. 

15  Fay  I'.  Wenzell,  8  Cush.  315,  317. 
But  see  Sayles  v  Briggs,  4  Met.  (Mass.) 
421,  424,  holding  that  the  want  of  a  judi- 
cial record  cannot  be  supplied  by  parol 
evidence,  and  Kendall  v.  Powers,  4  Met. 
(Mass.)  553,  555,  to  same  effect. 

16  Frink  v.  Frink,  43  N.  H.  508,  515. 

1"  Bank  of  Newburgli  v.  Sevmour,  14 
Jolms.  219;  Marsh  v.  Berry,  7  Cow.  344. 
348. 

18  Wade  V.  Odeneal,  3  Dev.  L.  423,  424 ; 
Reid  V.  Kelly,  1  Dev.  L.  313, 315,  Phillipse 
V.  Higdon,  Busb.  L.  380;  Mayo  v.  Whit- 
son,  2  Jones  L.  231,  235. 

la  Hollister  v.  District  Court,  8  Oh.  St. 
201,  203.  But  in  Ludlow  v.  Johnson,  3 
Ohio,  553,  it  was  held  that  an  order  nunc 
pro  tunc  cannot  be  founded  upon  mere 
parol  proof  of  what  was  ordered  to  be 
done  at  a  previous  term  :  p.  575  et  seq. 

2J  Wyman  v.  Buckstaff,  24  Wis.  477. 


§  148  PROCEEDING    IN   HEM    AND    JN    TERSONAM.  337 

original  entry  and  before  tlie  correction  thereof,' and  Must  be  made 
after  notice  to  the  parties  to  be  affected  by  it.^  But  3^" 'llfllX'! 
where  the  amendment  is  merely  as  to  form,  or  to  com-  ^''"'^  parties. 
plete  a  ministerial  act,  notice  to  the  other  side  does  not  seem  to 
be  necessary.^  It  is  held  that,  where  a  judgment  is  stricken  out 
during  the  term  at  which  it  was  rendered,  such  action  is  not  the 
subject  of  appeal ;  *  but  where  it  is  done  after  the  laj)se  of  the 
term,  an  ajjpcal  lics;'^ 

§  148.  Proceeding  in  Rem  and  in  Personam.  —  The  expression  is 
often  used,  in  asserting  for  the  judgments  of  probate  courts  a 
validity  not  claimed  for  them  in  respect  of  judgments  „„ 
i)i,  personam,  that  from  the  nature  of  the  jurisdiction  ceedings  in 
exercised  by  them  they  proceed  in  rem.  The  judg- 
ment, being  in  rem,  it  is  said,  is  conclusive  upon  all  the  world, 
and  hence  all  persons  whatever  have  a  right  to  be  heard  in  the 
proceeding.^  A  distinguished  jurist  says,  "  That  only  is  a  pro- 
ceeding in  rem  in  which  the  process  is  to  be  served  on  the 
thing  itself,  and  the  mere  possession  of  the  thing  itself,  by 
the  service  of  the  process  and  making  proclamation,  authorizes 
the  court  to  decide  upon  it  without  notice  to  any  individual  what- 
ever." "  To  constitute  a  probate  proceeding  a  proceeding  in  rem, 
says  Mr.  Waples,  in  his  recent  work  on  Proceedings  in  Rem,  it 
"  must  possess  all  the  characteristics  and  embrace  all  the  requi- 
sites of  that  form  of  action."  ^     It  follows,  that  possession  of  tlie 

1  McCormick  v.  Wheeler,  36  111.  114  ;  State  r.  Central  Pacific  R.  R.  Co.,  10  Nev. 

Hunt  V.  Grant,   19   Wend.  90;   and  see  47,80;  Grignon  r.  Astor,  2  How.  (U.  S.) 

Freem.  on  Judgm.  §66,  for  further  author-  319;    Day   v.  Micou,  18  Wall,  lofi,    162 

ities.     It  is  no  objection,  however,  that  a  (per  Strong,  J.) ;  Dickey  v.  Vann,  81  Ala. 

suit  between  the  parties  to  the  original  42'x 

record   be   thereby   defeated  :    Colby    v.  "^  Drake   on  Attachments,   §  5.     The 

Moody,  19  Me.  111.  author    adopts    the    language   of    Chief 

■•^  Poole  V.  McLeod,  1  Sm.  &  M.  391 ;  Justice  Marshall  in  Mankin  v.  Chandler, 

Cobb  r.  Wood,  1  Hawk.  95;  Wheeler  v.  2  Brock.  125,  127,  and  also  cites  Megee 

Goffe,  24  Tex.  660;    Lovejoy  v.  Irelan,  »;;  Beirne,  39  Pa.  St.  50,  and  Bray  v.  Mc- 

19  Md.  56.     Ill  Alabama  it  is  held  that  Clury,  55  Mo.  128. 

no   notice  is  necessary  to   the   opposite  ^  "Tiiere   must   be  a  rps,  custody  of 

party  :  Allen  v.  Bradford,  3  Ala.  281,  282,  tlie  res,  right  to  proceed  against  it,  a  cora- 

citin"'  earlier  cases.  potent   forum,  allegations  equivalent   to 

^  Hagler  v.  Mercer,  6  Fla.  721 ;  Allen  an  information,  notice  to  all  interested, 

r.  Bradford,  s)(/jra;  Nabcrs  t'.  JNIeredith,  67  a  hearing,  a  finding  of   facts,  an  order, 

Ala.  333.  judgment,  or  decree,  a  sale,  and  a  confir- 

*  Rutherford  v.  Pope,  15  Md.  579,  581.  niation  or  homologation,  before  the  'new 

^  Graff   V.    Transportation   Company,  title   paramount '   can  be  evolved   from 

18  Md.  364,  370;  Craig  i'.  Wroth,  47  iMd.  probate  proceedings":  Waples,  I'roc.  in 

281.  Hem,  §  563. 

6  Lowber  v.  Beauchamp,  2  Ilarr.  139; 
VOL.  I.  —  22 


838  NATURE   OP   PROBATE   COURTS    IN    AMERICA.  §  148 

thing  (custody  of  tlic  res')  is  one  of  the  essential  conditions  of 
jurisdiction  over  the  thing.  Every  other  requisite  may  be  con- 
ceded ;  and  if  executors  and  administrators  be  looked  upon  as 
officers  of  the  court,  so  that  possession  by  them  may  be  considered 
possession  by  the  court,  the  disposition  of  personal  property  by 
order  or  judgment  of  the  probate  court  is  clearly  a  proceeding  in 
rem.  The  law  vests  title  to  all  personal  property  of  a  decedent 
in  his  executor  or  administrator,  and  requires  the  latter  to  notify 
"all  the  world,"  by  publication,  of  his  assumption  of  the  office,  —  a 
proceeding  constituting  the  notice,  monition,  or  proclamation  re- 
quired to  obtain  jurisdiction  in  rem. 

But  the  title  to  real  property  vests,  in  most  States,  not  in  the 
executor  or  administrator,  but  in  the  devisee  or  heir.  Hence,  in 
all  of  these  States,  the  essential  requisite  of  jurisdiction  in  rem., 
possession,  the  custody  of  the  res^  is  wanting  in  I'espect  of  real 
estate.  Mr.  Waples,  in  the  work  referred  to,  strongly  empha- 
sizes, that,  if  the  estate  be  in  the  adverse  possession  of  another, 
the  administrator  must  first  gain  possession  before  the  probate 
court  can  take  jurisdiction  over  it.^  It  is  provided  in  most  States 
that  notice  must  be  given  to  the  heirs,  or  others  interested  in  real 
estate,  either  by  personal  service  or  publication,  before  real  estate 
can  be  subjected  to  the  satisfaction  of  debts  of  the  decedent.^ 
AVlien  such  notice  has  been  given,  the  importance  of  the  distinc- 
tion between  proceeding  in  rem  and  in  personam  disappears :  if 
tlie  notice  was  by  actual  service  on  the  parties,  they  are  parties  to 
the  record,  and  as  such  bound  by  the  judgment  of  the  court ;  if 
by  publication,  then  the  analogy  to  the  proceeding  in  rem  is  com- 
plete ;  the  title  of  the  administrator  is  thereby  extended  over  the 
real  estate,  and  displaces  that  of  the  heir  or  devisee  for  the  pur- 
poses pointed  out  by  the  law.  The  judgment  affects  neither  the 
person  nor  any  other  property  of  the  heirs  or  devisees  save  that 
described  in  the  notice  published,^  which  may  then  be  said  to  be 
in  the  custody  of  the  law.*  But  if  no  notice  was  given  to  parties 
in  interest,  and  the  administraltor  was  not  in  possession  of  the 
land,  under  the  law  of  the  State,  then  the  proceeding  is  necessa- 
rily void,  being  neither  in  rem  nor  in  personam.^ 

1  Waples,  Proc.  in  Rem,  §  565.  *  Doe  v.  Hardy,  52  Ala.  291,  295. 

2  See  pofit,  §  4GG,  on  the  subject  of  ^  And  the  record  shouUl  sliow  such 
the  sale  of  real  estate.                                     notice:  Waples,  Proc.  in  Rem,  §iiG9,  citing 

2  McPherson  v.  Cunliff,  11  S.  &  R.  422,  numerous  autliorities  to  show  that  with- 
430.  out  notice  to  the  heirs  a  sale  of  their  real 


§  149   METHOD  OF  PROCEDURE  IN  PROBATE  COURTS.      339 

It  is  lianlly  riccossarv  to  repeat,  that  the  jurisdiction  exercised 
by  i)r()bate  ci)urts  \n  adjudicatiiiu-  upon  the  rights  of  litigating 
parties,  is,  so  far  as  such  parties  are  jtresent  in  court  or  repre- 
sented by  counsel,  strictly  followed  by  all  the  consequences 
attendant  upon  adjudications  in  personam,  to  the  extent  of  the 
subject  matter  over  whicli  the  court  has  power. 

§    149.    Method    of   Procedure     in     Probate     Courts. — Altliough 
probate  courts  are  mostly,  if  not  universally,  courts  of  record,^ 
having  a  seal,  a  clerk,  or  authority  to  act  as  their  own  proceedings 
clerk,  and  executive  officers,  yet  their  procedure  is,  J.^u'ris'l'le 
generally,   summary,   requiring   no    pleading   in   the  s"'n'nary. 
technical  sense,  nor  adherence  to  artificial  rules  in  the  statement 
of   the  cause  of   action  or  defence.      An  intelligible  statement  of 
statement  of  an  existing  substantial  right,  which  the  asubsisnn^ 

~  °      '  right  IS  sum- 

court  has  jurisdiction  to  enforce,  is  a  sufficient  allega-  cienttoietin 

,  .  all  iiei^essarv 

tion  of  all  matters  necessary  to  sustain  a  judgment ;  proof  to  sus- 
and  the  simple  appearance  of  the  defendant  usually  appearance 
entitles  him  to  rebut  the  proof  offered  by  the  other  sufficie^iu  ^"^^ 
side,  or  prove  any  matter  in  defence ;  save,  perhaps,  t''^^e'"*e. 
a   cause  of   action   constituting   a    set-off   or   counter    claim,  of 
which  the  other  side  must    have  sufficient    notice    to    enable  it 
to  prepare  any  defence  it  may  have  to  the  same.     "  The  prac- 
tice in  county  courts  is  purposely   so  framed   that   parties  can 
attend  to  their  own  business  in  ordinary  matters,  and  tlie  decis- 
ions should  be   so   rendered  as  to   subserve  the  ends  of  justice 
according  to  the  evidence,  without  regard  to  technical  precision 
in  pleading."  2     In  Rhode  Island  a  statute  requiring  applications 
to  the  probate  court  to  be  made   in  writing  was  held  directory 

estate  by  order  of  tlie  probate  court  is  form  in  wliicli  it  is  presentefl."     If  "tbe 

void.  decree   reaches   the   real   justice  of    the 

1  Ante,  §  144.  case,"   it   will   be   affirmed  :    Stockton's 

2  Per  Wagner,  J.,  in  Subletfc  v.  Nel-  Appeal,  64  Pa.  St.  58,  68  ;  Watkins  i-. 
son,  o8  Mo.  487,  488.  "The  law  has  Donelly,  88  Mo.  322;  McManus  v.  Mc- 
pointcd  out  and  adopted  a  summary  mode  Dowell,  per  Thompson,  J.,  11  Mo.  App. 
of  proceeding  for  the  convenience  of  the  4o6,  444  ;  Noble  v.  McGinnis,  55  Ind. 
people,"  continues  the  Judge,  "and  to  528,  5o2;  Ramsey  v.  Fouts,  67  Ind.  78, 
apply  the  doctrine  of  variance  with  the  80  ;  Brook  v.  Chappell,  .34  Wis.  405, 
strictness  here  contended  for  would  make  410;  Comstock  v.  Smith,  26  Mich.  .306, 
it  a  snare  to  entrap  tlie  unwary."  To  322;  Anderson  v.  Gregg,  44  Miss.  170, 
the  same  effect,  P'linn  v.  Siiackleford,  176,  citing  numerous  Mississippi  cases; 
42  Ala.  202,  207:  "  Tlie  Orphan's  Court  Steph.  Dig.  of  Ev.  4 ;  Windell  v.  Hud- 
is  a  court  of  equity,  and  looks  only  to  son,  102  Ind.  521 ;  Culvert  v.  Yundt,  112 
the  justice  of  the  demand,  and  not  to  the  Ind.  401. 


340  NATURE   OF   PKOBATE   COURTS   IN   AMERICA.  §  149 

merely  ;  but  it  was  further  held  that  the  facts  constituting  the 
Parties  may  causc  of  action  must  iu  some  manner  appear  of  rec- 
soii'ror'by  ord.i  It  has  already  been  stated,  that  a  party  may 
agent?  ""^         appear  by  attorney  (or  agent),  or  in  person.^ 

It  lies  in  the  nature  of  these  courts,  that  in  the  exercise  of  tlieir 

jurisdiction  they  are  not  confined  to  legal  principles  or  the  rules 

^    J       of  common  law  courts,  but  exercise  eciuitable  powers 

Not  confined  _      _  ^  ' 

to  legal  or         as  wcll.     Whenever,  within  the  scope  of  the  statutory 

equitable,  but       ..,..  /^itjji  i  tp  i--*^ 

exercise  all  jurisdictiou  coniidcd  to  them,  the  rehet  to  be  adminis- 
cesTary'to'  tcrcd,  the  right  to  be  enforced,  or  the  defence  to  an 
fhrstatutory  actiou  properly  pending  before  them,  involves  the  ap- 
functions.  plicatiou  of  equitable  principles,  or  a  proceeding  m 

accordance  with  the  practice  in  chancery,  their  powers  are  com- 
mensurate with  the  necessity  demanding  their  exercise,  whether 
legal  or  equitable  in  their  nature.^ 

But  they  possess  these  powers  only  in  so  far  as  they  have  been 

conferred  by  statute,  or  are  indispensable  to  the  exercise  of  such 

as  have  been  conferred.*    Thev  have  no  original  chan- 

Have  no  ongi-  '  i      i      i  •        c 

nai  chancery  ccry  powcrs,  sucli  as  to  cnforco  a  vendor  s  lien,^  no 
poweib.  ancillary  jurisdiction  in  aid  of  common  law  courts,  no 

power  to  follow  a  trust  fund  through  various  transformations,'^ 
nor  over  any  purely  equitable  right.'  Even  where  the  chancery 
court  itself  has  probate  jurisdiction,  it  will  proceed  in  probate 

1  Robbins  u.  Tafft,  12  R.  I.  67.  &  Ross   v.  Julian,   70  Mo.   200,   212  ; 

•^  Ante,  §  144.  West  v.  Tliornburgb,  6  Blackf.  542,  544, 

3  Guier   v.    Kelly,  2  Binn.  294,  299 ;  or  set   aside  a  deed  •    Estate  of  Dunn, 

Dundas's  Appeal,  73  Pa.  St.  474,  477,  479  ;  Myr.  122,  123. 

Williamson's  Appeal,  94  Pa  St.  231,  236;  «  Butler  v.  Lawson,  72  Mo    227.  245. 

Powell  V.  North,  8  Ind.  392;   Deliart  >:  '  Davis   v.   Smith,  75   Mo    219.  227; 

Dehart,  15  Ind.  167  ;   Hurd  v.  Slaten,  43  Willard's  Appeal,  65   Pa.  St.    265,   267, 

111.  348;  Millard  v.  Harris,  119  111.  185,  citing  Brinker  ;>  Brinker,  7  Pa.  St.  53,  55, 

198;  Hales  v.  Holland,  92  111.  494,  498;  George's  Appeal,  12  Pa.  St.  260,  Siiollen- 

Donovan's  Appeal,  41  Conn,  551  ;    Blan-  berger's  Appeal,  21  Pa.  St.  337,  341,  Sny- 

ton  V.  King,  2  How.  (Miss.)  856;  Titter-  der's  Appeal,   30  Pa.   St.    166,   168,  and 

ington  V.  Hooker,  58  Mo.  593  ;  Hyland  v.  Woodward's  Appeal,  38  Pa.  St.  322,  828; 

Baxter,  98  N.  Y.  610,  616  ;  Ritch  v.  Bel-  Wiley's  Appeal,  84  Pa.  St.  270,  Stilwell 

lamy,  holding  that  where  a  surrogate  or  v.  Carpenter.  59  N.  Y.  414   425 ,  Presby- 

probate   power   is   at   the   same    time   a  terian    Church    u     McElhmney,   61    Mo. 

chancery  power,  the  jurisdiction  is  con-  540,  543;    Gilliland  v.   Sellers,  2  Oh.  St. 

current  in  the  two  courts-  14  Fla.  537,  223,    228;    Caldwell   v.   Caldwell,   15  N 

542  ;    Shoemaker  v.  Brown,   to  same  ef-  East.  (Ohio),  297,  301  .  Vail's  Appeal,  37 

feet :  10  Kans.  383,  890.  Conn.  185.  195  ,   Mann   v    Mann,  53  Vt. 

*  Post,  §  392.     Pearce  v.  Calhoun,  59  48,   55 ;   Hewitt's   Appeal,  53  Conn.  24  ; 

Mo.    271  ;    Bernheimer   v.    Calhoun,   44  Sherman  v.  Lanier,  39  N,  J.  Eq.  249,  258. 

Miss.  426,  429.  See  post,  §  392. 


§  149    METHOD  OF  PROCEDURE  IN  PROBATE  COURTS.     341 

matters  not  according'  to  tin;  strict  and  tcchni.-al  practice  resorted 
to  in  cluuicery,  but  according  to  the  sumniary  method  which  is 
prescribed  for  probate  courts.^  The  resemblance  of  probate  courts 
to  courts  of  chancery  consists  in  their  practice  of  proceeding-  by 
petition  and  answer,  containing  tlie  substance,  but  not  the  nice 
distinctions  of  a  bill  in  equity. ^ 

Jiut  the  oi-igin  of  our  probate  system,  referable  to  the  English 
spiritual  courts,  is  still  recognizable  in  the  decisions  of  some 
States  as  to  their  mode  of  procedure,  although  the  Procedure 
rules  of  the  civil  and  common  law  which  governed  the  eivUnncr** 
ecclesiastical  courts  are  necessarily  greatly  modified  '"'"""  '•''''• 
in  the  adaptation  to  the  widely  different  circumstances  and  spirit 
of  the  American  people.  So  it  has  been  held  in  Maine,  that  the 
probate  court  "  does  not  derive  its  mode  of  proceeding  from  tlie 
common  law,  but  the  statute  has  conferred  upon  it  the  powers  of 
ecclesiastical  courts,  and  prescribed  the  modes  of  proceeding 
borrowed  from  these  courts  and  the  courts  of  chancery."  ^  In 
New  Jersey  they  are  said  to  partake  of  the  powers  of  a  chan- 
cery and  prerogative  court  instituted  by  law  ;*  in  Mississippi^ 
and  Georgia,*^  the  civil  and  canon  law,  as  it  governed  the  proceed- 
ings of  the  ecclesiastical  courts  of  England  in  testamentary 
causes,  is  the  law  of  the  courts  of  ordinary  on  similar  questions ; 
and  in  South  Carolina  their  statutory  organization  is  said  to  con- 
stitute them  civil,  in  contradistinction  to  ecclesiastical  courts." 
In  New  Hampshire  courts  of  probate  "have  a  very* extensive 
jurisdiction  not  conferred  by  statute,  but  by  a  general  Powers  not 


excliisivelv 


eference  to  the  law  of  the  land,  that  is,  to  that  branch  SabiYtc 
of  the  common  law  known  and  acted  upon  for  ages,  « 


statutes. 


1  Wells  V.  Smith,  44   Miss.  296,  304.  probate  would  have  jurisdiction  to  order 

lu  Sharp  ;;.  Sharp,  7G  Ala.  312,  317,  Clop-  a  sale." 

ton,  J.  says:  "When  a  court  of  equity  -  "By  which,  however,  justice  is  ob- 
takes  jurisdiction  of  the  administration  tained  more  conveniently  and  as  cer- 
of  an  estate  of  a  decedent,  the  court  tainly  as  in  courts  of  equity,  purely  so 
takes  the  estate  in  its  condition  at  the  called":  Brinker  r.  Brinker,  si//)w  .•  Sim- 
time  of  taking  jurisdiction,  and  is  gov-  mons  v.  Henderson,  Freem.  Ch.  493,  497; 
erned  by  the  laws  regulating  and  con-  Satterwhite  v.  Littlefield,  13  Sm.  &  M. 
troUiug  the   sales  of  property,  payment  302,  307. 

of  debts,  and  settlement   of  administra-  ^  Withee  r.  Rowe,  45  Me.  571,  580.  ^ 

tions,  which  are  applicable  to  the  admin-  *  Wood  v.  Tallman,  1  N.  J.  L.  153, 155. 

istration  of  estates  in  the  Probate  Court.  ^  Cowden  i:  Dobyns,  5  Sm.  &  M.  82, 

Following  its  own  practice,  the  court  will  90. 

decree  a  sale  of  lands,  when  necessary,  ^  Finch  v.  Finch,  14  Ga.  362. 

and   when   in   similar   cases   a   court  of  '  Lide  v.  Lide,  2  Brev.  403. 


342 


NATURE   OF   PROBATE    COURTS    IN   AMERICA. 


§149 


the  probate  or  ecclesiastical  law."^  l>ut  the  rules  of  evidence 
and  of  property  are  equally  binding  upon  probate  and  common 
law  courts.^ 

It  is  self-evident  that  the  jurisdiction  conferred  upon  a  court, 
as  such,  can  be  exercised  only  by  the  court  when  sitting  in  term 
Court  only  time,  and  not  by  the  judge  in  vacation.  Hence  a  judg- 
ment rendei'ed  by  the  judge  after  the  adjournment  of 
the  term  is  coram  7ion  judice,  and  void.^  And  so  is 
a  judgment  rendered  against  a  party  without  notice 
to  him.*  Mere  verbal  orders,  or  ex  parte  proceed- 
ings not  of  record,  are  not  valid,  and  therefore  afford 
no  protection  to  an  administrator  in  a  subsequent 
proceeding.^ 

Probate  courts,  however,  have  the  incidental  power  to  adjourn;^ 
and  when,  for  unavoidable  reasons,  the  court  cannot  be  held  at 
Have  power  ^^^^  county  scat,  its  proceedings  are  not  void  if  held 
tcj  adjourn.  elscwlicre ; '^  and  it  will  be  presumed  that  the  house  in 
which  the  court  is  held  is  the  court-house.^ 


when  in  term ; 
judge  in  va- 
cation has  not 
tlie  power  of 
the  court. 

Judgment 
without  notice, 
verbal  orders, 
etc.,  %-oid. 


1  Per  Bell,  C.  J.,  in  Morgan  v.  Dodge, 
44  N.  H.  255,  258;  see  remarks  of  Per- 
ley,  C.  J.,  in  Ha^es  v.  Hayes,  48  N.  H. 
219,  22G. 

^  Evelethy.  Croucli,  loMass.  293.  As 
to  the  right  of  parties  to  testify  in  their 
own  behalf,  see  pust,  pp.  829  et  seg. 

3  But  semble  such  a  judgment  may  be 
declared  void,  and  the  cause  proceeded 
witli  from  the  last  previous  continuance: 
Moore  v.  Maguire,  2G  Ala.  4(31,  464  ;  the 
judge  has  no  power  to  hold  a  court  at 
any  other  time  or  place  than  those  fixed 
by  law,  and  any  decree  passed  in  such 
case  will  be  void  :  White  v.  Riggs,  27 
Me.  114,  117  ;  a  court  of  probate  cannot 
in  vacation  compel  an  administrator  to 
appear  before  it  and  give  additional  secu- 


rity upon  his  bond :  Wingate  v.  Wallis, 
5  Sm.  &  M.  249,  258 ;  nor  remove  an  ad- 
ministrator at  a  special  term  to  which 
the  cause  was  not  adjourned  :  Boynton 
V.  Nelson,  4G  Ala.  501,  50:). 

4  Wood  c.  Myrick,  16  Minn.  494,  502; 
Wells  V.  Smith,  44  Miss.  290,  302;  Gard- 
ner V.  Gardner,  42  Ala.  161. 

5  Scott  V.  Fox,  14  Md.  388,  394,  citing 
Carlysle  v.  Carlysle,  10  Md.  440  ;  Shine 
V.  Redwine,  30  Ga.  780,  794. 

6  Kimball  v.  Fisk,  39  N.  H.  110,  122. 

'  Sevier  v.  Teal,  16  Tex.  371,  873. 
But  it  must  be  within  the  county :  Cap- 
per V.  Sible}',  65  Iowa,  754. 

8  ShuU  V.  Kennon,  12  Ind.  34,  36; 
Kimball  v.  Fisk,  supra. 


§  150  SCOPE   OF    TUE   JUKISDICTION.  '343 


CHAPTER  XVI. 

OP    THE    SUBJECT    MATTER     WITHIN     THE    JURISDICTION    OF    PROBATE 

COURTS. 

§  150.    Scope  of  the  Jurisdiction.  —  Logically,  tlic  jurisdiction  of 
l)rol»ate  courts  should  extend  to  all  matters  necessarily  involved 
in  the  disposition  of  the  estates  of  deceased  persons,  j,,.;,^^.;  j,^  ^f 
from  the  time  of  the  owner's  death  until  the  property  jarisciietion  of 

pruljate  courts. 

has  been  placed  in  the  possession  of  those  to  whom  it 
devolves.  We  have  seen  that  the  English  testamentary  courts 
never  possessed  more  than  a  comparatively  small  proportion  of 
this  power ;  ^  and  it  is  equally  true  that  in  no  one  of  the  Ameri- 
can States  is  the  whole  of  it  vested  in  probate  courts.  Some  of 
the  elements  of  power  necessary  to  the  practical  realization  of  the 
rights  of  creditors,  heirs,  legatees,  distributees,  devisees,  and  of 
the  husband,  widow,  and  minor  children,  are  found  wanting  in  the 
statutory  grant  of  powers  to  these  courts  in  eacli  State,  which 
therefore  necessarily  lodge  in  other  courts.^  But  the  powers  so 
withheld  are  not  the  same  in  all  the  States ;  those  denied  in  some 
are  granted  in  others ;  so  that,  while  no  one  probate  court  pos- 
sesses them  all,  yet  the  full  scope  of  jurisdiction  strictly  subsum- 
able  under  the  principle  which  conditions  this  class  of  courts  will 
be  found  in  the  aggregate  of  powers  conferred  upon  them  in  the 
several  States.^ 

It  would  involve  unprofitable  labor  to  enumerate  in  this  place 
the  powers  directly  conferred  by  statute,  wliich  may  be  readily 
found  in  the  enactments  of  the  several  States  conferring  the 
powers.  But  it  should  be  mentioned  that  as  to  the  incidental 
powers  there  is  considerable  divergence  in  the  differ-  ^^  ^^^^^^  ^^^^^^ 
ent  States,  resulting  from  the  different  views  taken  incidental  pow- 

'  "  ers  are  granted. 

by  the  courts  upon  the  extent  to  which  implied  powers 

are  involved  in  the  powers  granted.     The  State  of  New  York, 

(under  the  Rev.  St.,  1830,  before  the  amendment  of  1837,*)  in 

1  Ante,  §  18n.  »  3  South.  L.  Rev.  (x   s.)  264. 

2  Bnsli  V.  Lindsey,  44  Cal.   121,  125;  *  See  ante,  §  142,  p.  323,  note  4. 
ante,  §  142. 


344  JURISDICTION   OF   PROBATE   COURTS.  §  1^1 

which  all  powers  of  the  surrogates  were  limited  to  such  as  were 
expressly  conferred  by  statute,  and  that  of  Pennsylvania,  in  which 
very  extensive  ]jo\vers  are  held  to  reside  in  the  Orphan's  Court  by 
necessary  implication,  may  be  looked  upon  as  marking  the  two 
extremes  in  this  respect,  the  other  States  taking  intermediate 
grounds.  It  is  said,  in  Pennsylvania,  that  the  Or])han's  Court 
alone  has  authority  to  ascertain  the  amount  of  a  decedent's  prop- 
erty, and  order  its  distribution  among  those  entitled  to  it ;  ^  that 
amons:  those  entitled  to  distribution  arc  included  creditors,  next 
of  kin,  legatees,  caid  other  persons  interested  in  the  estate;^  that 
"within  its  appointed  orbit"  the  jurisdiction  of  the  Orphan's 
Court  "  is  exclusive,  and  therefore  necessarily  as  coextensive  as 
the  demands  of  justice,"  ^  having  ample  power  to  inquire  into 
all  questions  standing  directly  in  tlie  way  of  a  distribution  to 
the  parties  in  interest ;  *  and  upon  the  principles  of  equity  may 
dispose  of  every  question  that  arises  in  the  determination  of 
matters  within  its  jurisdiction.^ 

§  151.  Jurisdiction  as  limited  to  the  Devolution  of  Property  on  the 
Owner's  Death.  —  Since  the  functions  of  probate  courts  are  limited, 
-    ....  in  respect  of  executors  and  administrators,  to  the  con- 

Junsdictinn  >■ 

limited  to  prop-  trol  of  the  dcvolutiou  of  property  upon  the  death  of 

ertv  questions  .      .  .  n-     t       i 

arising  out  of  its  owiier,  it  IS  iiot  tlicir  province  to  adjudicate  upon 
on  itrowiiei-'s  Collateral  questions.  The  right  or  title  of  the  dece- 
death.  ^^^^^  ^^  property  claimed  by  the  executor  or  adminis- 

trator against  third  persons,  or  by  third  persons  against  him,  as 
well  as  claims  of  third  persons  against  creditors,  heirs,  legatees, 
devisees,  or  distributees,  must,  if  an  adjudication  become  neces- 
Uniess  further  sary,  be  tried  in  courts  of  general  jurisdiction,  unless 
^vllfted'bv  S"^^^  jurisdiction  be  expressly  conferred  on  probate 
statute.  courts.^     It  follows  from  this  principle,  that  probate 

1  Per  Black,  C.  J.,   in  Whiteside   v.  231,  236;  Lex's  Appeal,  97  Pa.  St.  289, 

Whiteside,  20  Pa.  St.  473,  474.  292. 

-  Per  Lewis,  J.,  in  Kittera's  Estate,  17  ^  Miskimins'  Appeal,  114  Pa.  St.  530, 

Pa.  St.  416,  422  et  seq. ;  Black  v.  Black,  533. 

34  Pa.  St.  354,  356;  Ashford  v.  Ewinp,  «  Theller   v.  Such,  57   Cal.  447,  459; 

25  Pa.  St.  213,215  ;  Linsenhigler  i>.  Gour-  Shumway  v.  Cooper,  16  Barb.  556,  559; 

ley,  56  Pa.  St.  166,  172.  Larue   v.  Van    Horn,    25   La.   An.    445 ; 

3  Shollenberger's  Appeal,  21  Pa.  St.  Homer's    Appeal,    35    Conn.    118,    114; 

387,  341  ;  Ashford  v.  Ewing:,  supra,  citina;  Dunn's    Estate,    Myr.    122  ;    Gordon    v. 

Downer    v.   Downer,   9    Watts,    60,  and  Goule,     30    La.     An.     138  ;    Proctor    v. 

other  Pennsylvania  cases.  Atkyns,  1  Mass.  321  ;   Robinson's  Estate, 

*  Diindas'    Appeal,    73    Pa.    St.   474,  12  IPiiila.   170;    Edwards   v.    Mounts,  61 

479  ;    Williamson's   Appeal,   94   Pa.   St.  Tex.  398 ;  Wise  v.  O'Malley,  60  Tex,  588. 


§  151  LIMITED   TO    DEVOLUTIOX   OF    PROPEUTY.  345 

courts  have  no  power  to  investi<^atc  the  validity  of  an  „  .    .  ,.  . 

*  o  ^  j^Q  jurisdiction 

assignment  of  the  interest  of  an  heir  or  legatee;  the  to  try  disputed 

...  1111  1         assiyuuieuts. 

decree  of  distribution  or  payment  sliould  be  to  the 
legal  successor  to  the  property,  leaving  questions  of  disputed 
rights  between  these  and  claimants  against  them  to  be  adjudicated 
in  the  ordinary  courts.^  And  this  is  so  of  the  assignments  of 
creditors,^  and  of  the  assignment  by  a  widow  of  her  interest  in  the 
estate,'^  and  of  a  legacy  charged  upon  another  legacy.'*  But  it 
must  not  be  inferred  from  this  that  the  probate  court  But  mav  de- 
has  no  authority  to  decree  payment  to  an  assignee  u'iwu.rpavment 
whose  right  is  not  disputed,^  or  where  the  distril)utee  '"»"  assignee 

o  I  '  with  tlie  assign- 

is  estopped  by  a  release  ;*^  for  the  decree  in  favor  of  an  or's  consent, 

assignee,  assented  to  by  the  assignor,  is  of  the  same  effect  as  a 
decree  in  favor  of  the  assignor.'  And  such  power  may  be  con- 
ferred upon  the  probate  court  by  statute.^  So,  too,  an  executor 
or  administrator,  who  wrongfully  collects  rents  from  „ 

'  o         ./  j^o  pnwer  over 

real  estate  of  which  the  title  and  right  of  possession  property 

■^  wroiigfullv 

IS  m  the  heirs  or  devisees,  is  not  accountable  for  such   taken  by  the 
rents  to  tlie  probate  court,  because  he  does  not  hold 
the  rents  so  collected  as  a  representative  of  the  estate,  but  as  one 
who  has  trespassed  upon  the  rights  of  others,  who  may  call  him 
to  account  in  a  court  of  ordinary  jurisdiction.^     And  the  same  is 

1  Wood  V.  Stone,  39  N.  H.  572 ;  Hill  ^  jf  an  assignee  of  a  legatee  snbmit 

V.  Hardy,  34  Miss.  289,  291  ;  Decker  v.  liis  claim  to  the  decision  of  the  probate 

Morton,   I    Kedf.  477,  484;  Portevant  v.  court,  such  decision,  if  not  appealed  from, 

Neylans,  38  Miss.  104  ;  Knowlton  v.  John-  is  binding  :  Otterson  f.  Gallagher,  88  Pa. 

son,  46  Me.  489 ;  Holcomb  v.  Sherwood,  St.  355,  .358. 

29  Conn.  418 ;  Harrington  v.  La  Rocque,  6  Tillson  v.  Small,  13  Atl.  (Me.)  402. 

13  Or.  344;    Farnliam   v.  Thompson,  34  "  Ordinary  ?•.  Matthews,  7  Rich.  L.  26, 

Minn.    330,    336  ;    Hewitt's    Appeal,    53  ,30  ;  Vanhorn  v.  Walker,  27  Mo.  App.  78. 

Conn.  24.     This  principle  is  recognized  As  to  the  rights  of  assignees,  see  post, 

by  the  surrogate  of  New  York  in  a  num-  §  5G3,  and  authorities, 
her  of  cases  :  Mumford  v.  Coddington,  1  ^  See  Re  Phillips,  71  Cal.  285,  where 

Deni.  27  ;  Fracnznick  v.  Miller,   1  Dem.  it  is  assumed  that  the  power  is  vested  in 

13(5  (disputed  claim  against  an   estate)  ;  the    court   having   probate  jurisdiction  ; 

and  a  number  of  other  cases.  Tilden  v.  Dows,  2  Dem.  489,  493,  the  sur- 

-  /^ost,  §  412.  rogate  refusing  to  decide,  but   strongly 

3  Woodruff  V.  Woodruff,  3  Dem.  50.5,  doubting  that  such  power  exists  indepen- 
508;  as  in  case  of  dower:  Hewitt's  Ap-  dent  of  the  statute;  Mumford  v.  Cod- 
peal,  53  Conn.  24,  37.  dington,  1  Dem.  27,  28  ;  and  when  given 

*  Ditsche's  Estate,  13  Pliila.  288 ;  Brit-  by  statute,  is  not  to  be  exercised  before 

tin  r.  Phillips,  1  Dem.  57,  60.     In  Penn-  final  accounting  :  Tilden  i".  Dows,  3  Dem. 

sylvania,   however,   tlie  Orphan's   Court  240. 

has  exclusive  jurisdiction  in  case  of  leg-  ^  Calyer  v.  Calyer,  4  Redf.  305.     See 

acies  charged  on  real  estate  :  Brotzman's  post,  §  513. 
Appeal,  119  Pa.  St.  645,  655. 


346  JURISDICTION    OF    PROBATE   COURTS.  §  151 

true  of  personal  property  seized  or  claimed  bj  the  executor  or 

administrator  as  a  part   of  the  estate,  and  claimed  by  others.^ 

Where  the  statute  confers  exclusive  iurisdiction  upon 

N(ir  over  ques-  •    .  "^  ' 

tions  of  title       courts  of  probatc  to  obtain  and  regulate  the  partition 

paramount  to  p  .  , ,  ,        r  •       i      i  t     ,  i 

that  of  the  of  successions,  the  grant  oi  power  is  held  to  apply 
tece  eiit.  ^^|^  ^^  cascs  "where  the  thing  to  be  partitioned  is 

one  entire  succession  and  the  parties  hold  by  the  same  title  as 
heirs ";2  if,  therefore,  the  property  to  be  divided  bo  owned  in  part 
by  heirs,  and  in  part  by  a  distinct  and  independent  title,  the  pro- 
Nor  between  l^^te  court  is  without  jurisdiction.^  So,  the  probate 
trustee^'incMhe  court  lias  no  jurisdiction  to  compel  an  accounting 
cestui  que  trust,  between  a  testamentary  trustee  and  the  cestui  que 
trust; '^  but  power  in  the  executor  to  sell  land,  and  to  dispose  of 
the  property  of  the  estate  as  to  the  executor  shall  seem  best, "  and 
without  responsibility,"  does  not  create  a  trust  in  the  sense  of 
depriving  the  probate  court  of  its  jurisdiction  to  compel  the  exec- 
utor to  account  for  waste  of  such  estate.^  In  like  manner,  where 
the  statute  confers  power  on  the  probate  court  to  order  payment 
of  claims  against  the  estate  which  are  not  disputed  by  the  admin- 
istrator, there  is  no  power  to  order  the  payment  of  disputed 
claims  °  or  legacies,'  nor  of  claims  acquired  by  subrogation.^  So 
as  to  homesteads  of  widows,  if  their  right  is  disputed.^  And 
jurisdiction  "in  all  matters  relating  to  the  allotment  of  dower" 

1  Marston  v.  PauUling,  10  Pai.  40  ;  see  Rudd  v.  Rudd,  4  Dem.  335.  In  Mas- 
Merrick's  Estate,  8  Watts  &  S.  402  ;  sachusetts,  wliere  by  statute  the  Probate 
Wadsvvorth  v.  Cliick,  55  Tex.  241;  Cal-  Court  audits  the  accounts  of  testamentary 
yer  v.  Calyer,  supra.  trustees,  it  has  jurisdiction  to  determine 

2  Henry  v.  Keays,  12  La.  214,  219;  whether  the  trustee  lias  accounted  in  full 
Buddecke  v.  Buddecke,  31  La.  An.  572,  to  the  beneficiaries  for  the  whole  of  the 
574  ;  State  v.  Parker,  9  N.  J.  L.  242,  243;  income  of  tlie  trust  fund  :  New  England 
McBride's  Appeal,  72  Pa  St.  480,  484.  Trust  Co.  v.  Eaton,   140  Mass.  532,  and 

3  Buddecke  r.  Buddecke,  supra.     But  see  authorities  cited. 

aliter  if  the  statute  determines  the  ques-  ^  Auguisola  v.  Arnaz,  51  Cal.  435,438. 

tion  of  jurisdiction:  Brown's  Appeal,  84  So  where  a  trust  is  imposed  upon  the 

Pa.  St.  457,  458.  executrix    as   such,   the  Orphan's  Court 

*  Poole  V.  Brown,  12  S.  C.  556,  558;  has  sole  jurisdiction  of  such  trust:  Erie 

Haverstick   ;;.  Trudel,  51   Cal.  431,  433;  Savings  Co.  v.  Vincent,  105  Pa.  St.  315, 

Billingsley  v.  Harris,  17  Ala.  214  ;  Strong  322. 

V.   Stroiio:,  8  Conn.  408  (the  statute  re-  ^  Magee  u.  Vedder,  6  Barb.  352,  354. 

quiring  the  appointment  of   distributors  "^  Matter  of  Hedding  Church,  35  Hun, 

in  this  State).     The  extent  of  tlie   sur-  313. 

rogatc's   jurisdiction   over   testamentary  ^  Leviness  v.  Cassebeer,  3  Redf.  491, 

trustees  and    guardians   uiuler  the  New  498  ;  Burton's  Estate,  64  Cal.  428. 
York  statutes  is  full}' discussed  in  Matter  ^  Lazell  v.  Lazell,  8  Allen,  575,  577; 

of  Hawley,  104  N.  Y.  250,  262  et  seq. ;  and  Woodward  v.  Lincoln,  9  Allen,  239. 


§  152      LIABILITIES  ARISING  FROM  THE  ADMINISTRATION.  347 

dous  not  (•uufer  jurisdiction  over  a  stranger  claiming  adversely  to 
the  husband  under  an  execution  sale  ; '  nor  does  the  power  con- 
ferred upon  probate  courts  to  subj)oena  and  examine  parties 
alleged  to  conceal  or  withhold  property  of  the  estate  authorize 
such  courts  to  try  the  title  to  the  property  in  disi)uf('.'-  In  South 
Carolina,  where  the  constitution  confers  jurisdiction  upon  probate 
courts,  and  the  power  to  {jartition  real  estate  is  not  expressly  con- 
ferred, it  was  held  that  an  act  of  the  legislature  conferring  the 
power  is  unconstitutional,  and  the  want  of  jurisdiction  to  decree 
partition  in  a  probate  court  may  be  insisted  on  in  the  appellate 
court,  or  declared  by  the  court  itself,  although  neither  side  raised 
the  point  in  either  court.*^  So  the  power  to  try  civil  and  criminal 
cases  conferred  upon  the  probate  court  by  a  Territorial  legislature 
has  been  held  inconsistent  with  the  act  of  Congress  under  which 
the  Territory  is  organized,  and  which  conferred  upon  the  supreme 
and  district  courts  general  jurisdiction  at  common  law  and  in 
chancery  ;  ■*  and  where  the  jurisdiction  of  district  courts  "  extends 
over  all  civil  causes  where  the  amount  in  dispute  exceeds  fifty 
dollars,"  the  probate  court  was  held  to  be  without  jurisdiction 
to  try  charges  of  maladministration  and  spoliation  against  the 
administrator.^ 

§  152.  Liabilities  arising  from  the  Administration.  — Upon  the 
same  princii)lc,  probate  courts  have  no  jurisdiction  to  decree  pay- 
ment to  persons  employed  by  the  executor  or  admin-  no  jurisiUctioa 
istrator  to  render  services  for  him,  or  for  the  estate,  ai;;liusuiie^es- 
in  its  administration.^     Although  it  may  be  the  duty  t:i'«  :i''^|"ff  ""t 

'~  •'  •'01  tl>u  ailiiiuus- 

of  the  court,  in  passing  upon  the  administration  ac-  nation. 
count,  to  determine  the  reasonableness  of  payments  for  such  ser- 
vices, and  allow  or  reject  the  credits  taken  therefor,  it  has  not  the 
power,  unless  expressly  granted  by  statute,  to  adjudicate  upon  the 
claims  of  such  persons  against  the  udministrator  ;  their  remedy, 
if  he  refuse  to  pay,  is  in  another  court.  Thus,  while  the  court 
may  make  an  allowance  to  an  administrator  who  performs  ser- 

1  Jigsitts  i;.  Bennett,  31  Miss.  GIO,  612,  ?•.  Gil  more,  13  Mo.  App.  155,  158;  post, 

citing  former  Mississippi  cases,  Fislier,  J.,  §  325,  p  681,  note  1. 

dissenting,  on  the  ground  tliat  the  term  ^  Davenport  v.  Caldwell,  10  S.  C.  317, 

"  allotment  "   of    dower    necessarily    in-  347. 

cluiles  all  cases  in  which  an  allotment  of  ■*  Ferris  r.  Higley,  20  Wall.  375,  370. 

dower  is  claimed  :  p.  614.  5  Fouriiiquet  v.  Perkins,  7  How.  (U.S.) 

-  Simimerfield  v.  Howie,  2  Redf.  149  ;  IGO. 
Gibson  c.  Cook,  62  Md.  25G,  261 ;  Smith  «  gge  post,  §  356. 


348  JURISDICTION    OF    PROBATE    COURTS.  §  153 

vices  for  the  estate,  as  an  attorney  at  law,  not  within  the  scope  of 
his  duties  as  administrator,^  or  allow  him  credit  for  counsel  fees 
properly  paid,^  it  has  no  jurisdiction  to  order  the  payment  of 
Nor  of  debts  counsel  fccs  by  the  administrator.^  Debts  created 
created  after      j^£|-g,.  ^j-^^  ^^^^^  ^f  ^j^g  intcstatc  OF  tcstator  canuot  be 

decedent  s 

death.  proved  in  the  probate  court ;  *  nor  can  the  probate  court 

Nor  to  adjust     adjust  the  rights  or  equities  arising  out  of  the  sale  of 

the  rights  of  n    n  ••  c  it  i       i     j 

purciiasers  of  real  cstate,  or  out  01  the  vacation  of  the  sale,  between 
dmiif'Mhe^"  the  purchaser  and  administrator;^  nor  between  co- 
administration, administrators  as  to  the  commissions  allowed  them 
in  gross  ;  ^  nor  determine  the  validity  of  a  purchase  by  an  adminis- 
trator in  his  own  name  for  the  benefit  of  creditors."  Neither  has 
it  power  to  try  a  claim  against  an  executor  for  damages  arising 
out  of  his  acts  as  such.^ 

§    153.    Adjudication    of     Claims    against    the    Deceased.  —  The 

power  to  adjudicate  upon  claims  against  deceased  persons  is  in 

most  States  conferred  upon  the  courts  having  control 

No  power  to  .  . 

adjudicate  on     ovcr  the  administration  of  their  estates,  either  exclu- 

clainis  against  i  •   i  i  a    i      i_         i 

the  deceased  sivcly,  or  Concurrently  with  other  courts  ;^  but  unless 
feri'edby''  f^uch  powcr  is  cxpressly  granted,  the  probate  courts 
statute.  cannot  exercise  it.     Thus  it  is  held  in  Maryland  that 

authority  in  the  Orphan's  Court  to  pass  such  claims,  and  authorize 
and  approve  their  payment,  does  not  include  the  power  to  ascer- 
tain their  validity  and  amount  ;io  lience  the  Orphan's  Court  has  no 
power,  against  the  protestation  of  the  administrator,  to  decree  the 
payment  of  any  claim  until  a  court  of  law  shall  have  definitively 
pronounced  on  its  validity. ^^  And  in  New  York  the  delegation  of 
authority  to  surrogates  to  decree  distribution  to  claimants  "  ac- 

1  Bates  r.  Vary,  40  Ala.  421,  441;  or  *  Eichelberger  v.  Hawthorne,  33  Md. 

order  counsel  fees  to  be  paid  where  the  588,  590;    Young  v.  Sliumate,  3  Sneed, 

statute  authorizes  the  court  to  direct  the  369,   371;  Bond    v.   Clay,   2  Head,  379; 

payment  of  expenses  of  administration  :  Wolfe  v.  Lynch,  2  Dcm.  610,  616.     But 

Stokes  I'.  Dale,  1  Dem.  260.  see  post,  §   154,   where   cases   are   cited 

'^  Pearson  v.  Darrington,  32  Ala.  227.  showing  tiie  exercise  of  such  authority. 

273.      See  post,  on  the   compensation  of  "^  Mount   v.   Slack,  39  N.  J.  Eq.  2G0. 

administrators,  §  515  e<  seq.  But  in  New  York  jurisdiction  is  conferred 

3   Wright  !•.  "Wilkerson,  41   Ala.  2G7,  by  statute:  Re  Dunkel,  5  Dem.  188.    And 

273;    Townshend  i'.  Brooke,  9  Gill,  90;  see  Re  Seitz,  6  Mo.  App.  250. 

Hoes  V.  Halsey,  2  Dem.  577,  579  ;  Barker  ^  Peters  v.  Carr,  2  Dem.  22,  29. 

V.  Kunkel,  10  111.   App.  407,  411  ;    and  «  Winton's  Appeal,   111   Pa.  St.  387, 

see  cases  under  §  .356.  394. 

*  Presbyterian  Church  v.  McElhinney,  ^  See  post,  §  391. 

61  Mo.  540,  542;  Estate  of  Robinson,  12  "^  Bowie  v.  Giiiselin,  30  Md.  553,  556. 

Phil.  170.  "  Miller  v.  Dorsey,  9  Md.  317,  323. 


§  154  INCIDENTAL   POWERS.  349 

cordin<^  to  their  respective  rights,"  and  "  to  settle  and  determine 
all  (|uestions  concerning  any  dcl^t,  claim,  legacy,  bequest,  or  dis- 
tributive share,"  is  held  to  give  them  no  |)ovver  to  ascertain  what 
such  rights  were,  and  that  they  are  utterly  without  jurisdiction 
either  to  allow  or  reject  any  claim  whose  validity,  not  having  been 
established  in  some  competent  tribunal,  is  disputed  by  the  execu- 
tor or  administrator.!  Nor  has  the  surrogate  jurisdiction  to  de- 
termine whether  there  has  been  an  accord  and  satisfaction  of  a 
judgment  disputed  by  the  administrator,  or  whether  the  estate  is 
entitled  in  equity  to  a  release  or  discharge.^  But  the  New  York 
statute,  which  i)rovidcs  for  the  [)roving  and  allowing  of  an  execu- 
tor's claim  against  the  estate  before  the  surrogate,  is  held  to  in- 
clude claims  that  are  disputed  as  well  as  those  not  disputed,  and 
the  circumstance  that  other  persons  are  jointly  interested  with 
him  does  not  affect  the  surrogate's  authority  to  adjudicate  the 
same,  because  otherwise  the  executor  would  have  no  means  to 
have  his  claim  allowed.^ 

§  154.  Incidental  Powers  conferred  by  necessary  Implication.  — 
The  necessity  of  recognizing  power  in  the  probate  courts  to  carry 
out  the  functions  expressly  pointed  out  for  them,  and  ^        .     ,.  ^ 

r  -I    i-  '  Powers  iinplied 

to  accomplish  the  express  purposes  for  which  they  in  powers 
are  created,  has  already  been  mentioned.^     Thus  the  ^' ^"  "^  ' 
power  to  compel  the  executor  or  administrator  to  return  a  correct 
inventorv  of  the  estate,  includes  the  power  to  deter- 

'  '  ^  To  ascertain 

mine  what  property  constitutes  assets  or  belongs  to  what  cousti- 
the  estate,  and  hence  to  try  the  title  to  property;  ^au- 
thority to  direct  and  control  executors  and  administrators  includes 
the  power  to  approve  or  disapprove  investments  made  by  tiiem  as 
trustees  under  provisions  of  a  will ;  ^  the  power  to  decree  distribu- 
tion or  pavment  of  legacies  involves  the  power  to  try  Validity  of 

,  -  T,  -,      -p  -  -ii'-        g^ifts  mortis 

the  validity  of  an  alleged  gift  mortis  causa; '  the  juris-  causa. 

1  Greene  v.  Day,  1  Deni.  45,  50.     Tlie  2  McNulty    v.    Hurd,   72    X.   Y.   518, 

surrogate,   on    pp.   48    and    49,    collects  521. 

numerous   New    Yoric   decisions,   among  8  Shakespeare  v.  Markham,  72  N.  Y. 

tliem   Tucker  v.  Tucker,  4  Keyes,    136,  400,407;  Bougliton  r.  Flint,  74  N.  Y.  476, 

tlie   leading    case    on    this    point;    and  480.     See  yws<,  §  391. 

quaintly  remarks  that  the  statute  author-  ■*  Ante,   §    142,   and   authorities  there 

izes  the  surrogate  "  to  settle  and  deterniiue  citeil. 

such  questions,  and  such  questions  only,  5  McWillie  v.    Van  Vacter,  35  Miss, 

as  were  not  a  matter  of  dispute  hetween  428,  445,  citing  Mississippi  cases, 

the  parties,  or,  in  simpler   phrase,  such  ^  Jones  v.  Hooper,  2  Dem.  14. 

questions  as  there  was  no  question  about."  "  Fowler   v.  Lockwood,  3  Eedf.  4G5, 

Lambert  v.  Craft,  98  X.  Y.  342.  470. 


350  JURISDICTION    OF   PROBATE    COURTS.  §  154 

diction  to  construe  a  will,  and  to  ascertain  and  pass  npon  the 
claims  of  parties  asserting  rights  nnder  or  by  virtue  of  it, 
includes  the  power  of  the  probate  court  to  adjudicate  ujion  the 
Indebtedness  to  Hghts  of  an  cxccutor,  as  creditor,  legatee,  or  heir, 
[^lldaur'te^r^^  adverse  to  those  whom  he  represents ;  ^  under  power 
or  legatee.         a  j-q  clistributc  the  residuc  of   the  estate  among  the 

persons  who  by  law  are  entitled  thereto,"  to  deter- 
To  try  validity        .  "^  ' 

of  trusts  ere-      mine  whether  a  valid  trust  has  been  created  by  the 

will,2  and  what  is  the  trust,  who  are  the  trustees  and 

beneficiaries,  and  to  distribute  accordingly.^     In  the  exercise  of 

Toenforcerem-  the  power  to  Sell  succcssion   property,  the   probate 

bicider^uf  asait  coui't  lias  jurisdiction,  as  an  incident  thereto,  to  en- 

consVitut74       force  the  remedies  provided  by  law  against  a  bidder 

ajsets.  -vvho  refuscs  to  comply  with  his  bid.*    In  Pennsylvania, 

where  the  Orphan's  Court  has  jurisdiction  of  the  parti- 
Partition  lands.      .  CTl  ••1111 

tion  01  decedents  estates,  it  is  held  that  ejectment  will 

not  lie  by  heirs  against  a  widow  in  possession,  but  the  proceeding 

must  be  by  partition  in  the  Orphan's  Court ;°  nor  dower 

Ass)ii;n  dower.  .  i        i     •        ^         i 

against  the  heirs,''  unless  the  land  is  m  the  adverse 
possession  of  one  denying  her  right,  or  not  amenable  to  the  pro- 
cess of  the  Orphan's  Court ; '  and  enforce  the  payment  of  owelty 
Specific  per-  in  partition.^  Specific  performance  of  a  decedent's 
cmurac^sfor  coutracts  for  the  sale  of  land  has  been  held  to  be 
sale  of  lands,  -within  the  jurisdiction  "  pertaining  to  probate  courts,"  ■' 
as  well  as  to  try  questions  of  fraud  incidental  to  any  subject  of 
which  the  probate  court  has  jurisdiction.^'^ 

Where  the  power  to  award  costs  and  enforce  their  payment  is 
given,  it  is  exclusive ;  a  common  law  court  to  which  issues  are 
To  adjudicate  scut  by  the  Orphan's  Court  cannot  enter  judg- 
tionofcostr*    ment  for  costs, ^^  nor  can  an  appellate  court.^^     Costs 

1  Denegre  v.  Denegre,  33  La.  An.  689.      See  tlie  case  of  Mussleman's  Appeal,  65 

2  Estate  of  Hinckley,  Myr.  189,  194;  Pa.  St.  480,  485,  in  wliich  Agnew,  J., 
Estate  of  Crooks,  Myr.  247,  249.  reviews  tlie  history  of   the  gradual  en- 

^  Estate  of  Crooks,  supra.  largement  of  jurisdiction  of  the  Orphan's 

*  Succession  of  Bobb  27  La.  An.  344,  Court  in  Pennsylvania. 

345;  Bell's  Appeal,  71  Pa.  St.  471      But  «  Neel's  Appeal,  88  Pa   St  94 

this  is  lield  differently   in  some  States  :  ^  Adams  v   Lewis  5  Sawy  229.     Con 

ante.  §  151.  cvirrent  with  chancery  courts  when  con 

6  Seider  v.  Seider,  5  Whart.  208,  217.  ferred  hy  statute  .  Lynes  v.  Hayden,  119 

6  Thomas  v.  Simpson,  3  Pa.  St.  60,  67  ;  Mass.  482. 

a  life  tenant  may  also  proceed  for  parti-  1°  Wade  v.  Labdell,  4  Cush  510. 

tion   in  the   Orphan's  Court  :    Kankin's  '^  Levy  v.  Levy.  28  Md.  25,  29. 

Appeal,  95  Pa.  St.  358,  364.  «  Johns  v    Hodges,  60  Md.  215,  228 , 

■  Evans  v.  Evans,  29  Pa.  St.  277,  280.  Brown  v  Johns,  62  Md  333. 


§  lo5  POWER   TO    CONSTIIUE    WILLS.  351 

follow  the  judgment  or  decree  rendered,  unless  otherwise  ex- 
pressed in  the  judi>-nicnt;  and  when  the  term  has  lapsed  at  which 
the  judgment  was  rendered,  the  probate  court  has  no  further 
power  over  it.^     It  is  held  in  ]\Iimicsota,  that  where  a  .„    ,   ^  , 

i  '  To  olfict  dower 

widow,  who  is  entitled  to  her  election  l)etween  the  for  insane 
provisions  of  a  will  and  her  dower,  is  incompetent, 
because  of  unsoundness  of  mind,  to  make  the  election,  it  is  the 
duty  of  the  probate  court  to  elect  for  her,  unless  there  be  a  statu- 
tory power  committed  to  the  guardian  or  committee  ;2  in  other 
States  such  power  rests  in  chancery  courts,^  or,  being  personal  to 
the  widow,  is  lost.^ 

§  155.  Power  to  construe  Wills.  —  The  jurisdiction  of  probate 
courts  over  the  estates  of  deceased  persons  necessarily  includes 
the  power  in  the  first  instance  to  construe  wills,  whenever  such 
construction  is  involved  in  the  settlement  and  distribution  of  the 
estate  of  a  testator.  It  is  obvious  that  distribution  cannot  be 
made,  nor  legacies  ordered  to  be  paid,  unless  the  rights  of  lega- 
tees are  first  adjudicated ;  and  such  adjudication  involves  the 
ascertainment  of  the  testator's  intention,  in  order  to  fix  the  rights 
of  legatees  in  accordance  therewith,^  and  whether  a  bequest  is 
valid  or  void,^  or  adeemed."  In  New  York  a  statute*  confers 
upon  the  surrogate  of  the  county  of  New  York,  in  a  proceeding 
to  prove  a  last  will,  the  same  power  as  is  vested  in  the  Supreme 
Court  of  that  State  to  pass  upon  and  determine  the  true  construc- 
tion, validity,  and  legal  effect  thereof,  in  case  the  validity  of  aiiy 
of  the  dispositions  contained  in  such  will  is  contested,  or  the  con- 
struction, or  its  legal  effect,  called  in  question  by  any  of  the  heirs 
or  next  of  kin  of. the  deceased,  or  any  legatee  or  devisee.  The 
surrogate  of  New  York  construed  this  act  as  requiring  him  to 
exercise  the  authority  of  determining  the  legal  effect  and  true 
construction  of  any  of  its  provisions,  as  absolutely  as  tlie  Supreme 
Court  might  do  when  it  obtained  jurisdiction;^  hut  this  view  was 

1  Lucas  V.  Morse.  lo9  Muss.  5P.  r.  Rl;isini,  OO  La.  An.  1388,  1389  ;  Appeal 

-  State  ('.  UelaiKl.  :J0  Minn.  277,  282.  of  vScliaeffner,  41  Wis.  200,  264,  approving 

3  Kennedy  v.  Johnston,  65  Pa.  St.  451,  Brook  r.  Cliappell,  34  Wis.  405, 419 ;  Harri- 
45.5.  son  r.  Harrison,  9  Ala.  470, 477  ;  Covert  v. 

4  Collins  V    Carman,  5  'Mil.  503,  529;  Sebern,  85  N.  W.  R.  (Iowa),  636,  639. 
Lewis  I'.  Lewis,  7  Ired.  72.     See  on  tliis  ^  Johnson  v.  Lonsniire,  39  Ala.  143. 
subject  ante,  §  119  ^  May  v  May,  28  Ala.  141. 

5  State  V.  Ueland,  30  Minn.  277,  282  ;  8  i^aws,  1870,  ch.  359.  §  11. 

In  re  Verplanck,  91  N.  Y    430,  450  ;  Dii  ^  Danser  u  Jeremiah,  3  Redf.  130, 137. 

Bois  V.  Brown,  1  Dem.  317,  322,  Blasini 


352  JURISDICTION    OF    PROBATE   COURTS.  §  155 

overruled  by  the  Court  of  Appeals,  holding  that  the  effect  of  the 
statute  was  restricted  to  the  proceedings  in  proving  the  will ;  and 
that  the  surrogate  possessed  no  more  power  to  try  the  validity  of 
a  disputed  legacy,  than  to  adjudicate  upon  the  disputed  claim  of  a 
creditor.  "  When  in  good  faith  an  executor  resists  the  charging 
of  a  legacy  upon  the  residuary  estate  in  his  hands,  and  shows 
that  there  is  a  real  question  of  fact  or  of  law  in  his  refusal  to 
allow  it,  the  jurisdiction  of  the  surrogate  ceases,  or  has  never 
attached.  It  is  for  the  appropriate  court  of  law  or  equity  to  adju- 
dicate upon  the  matter.  When  determined  there,  the  surrogate 
may  go  on  with  the  accounting,  or  whatever  other  proceeding  was 
before  him  when  the  question  arose."  ^  This  decision  is  some- 
what modified  by  later  cases,  in  which  it  is  held  that  the  surro- 
gate has  power  to  pass  upon  the  construction  of  a  will  where  the 
right  to  a  legacy  depends  upon  a  question  of  construction  which 
must  be  detei'mined  before  a  decree  of  distribution  can  be  made, 
and  that  this  power  can  be  exercised  on  final  accounting  only, 
when  all  the  parties  who  may  be  affected  by  the  adjudication  are 
brought  in.^ 

In  Maryland  the  Orphan's  Courts  have  power  to  take  probate  of 
wills,  but  not  to  adjudicate  questions  of  title  dependent  upon  their 
operation  and  effect,  or  to  decide  upon  the  right  of  disposition. 
"  When  probate  is  granted,  authority  to  determine  what  passes 
under  the  will  is  devolved  upon  the  courts  of  law  and  equity, 
tribunals  which  are  clothed  with  ample  jurisdiction  to  decide  that 
question."  ^ 

It  may  be  proper  to  note  in  this  connection  the  power  of  courts 
of  equity  in  respect  of  the  construction  of  wills,  upon  the  appli- 
cation of  an  executor,  administrator,  or  other  trustee,  or  even  of  a 
cestui  que  trust,  to  determine  questions  of  doubt  in  carrying  trusts 
into  effect.*  The  power  arises  out  of  the  jurisdiction  of  courts  of 
equity  to  decree  the  payment  of  legacies  (because  the  ecclesiasti- 
cal courts  could  neither  take  the  accounts  necessary  sometimes 

1  Bevan  v.  Cooper,  72  N.  Y.  317,  827  citing  tlie  case  of  Micliael  v.  Baker,  12 
et  seq. ;  Fraenznick  v.  Miller,  1  Dem.  136.     Md.  1-58,  160;  Ramsey  r.  Welby,  63  Md. 

2  Riggs  V.  Cragg,  89  N.  Y.  479,  492,     584,  citing  earlier  cases 

and   cases   supra;    In    re  Verplanck,  91  *  See  on  tliis  point  1  Redf.  on  Wills, 

N.   Y.  439,  450;    Tappan    v.   Church,  3  488,493,  Schoiil.  Ex.  §§  265, 473 ;  Story, 

Dem.    187,   disapproving    Fraenznick   v,  Eq.  §  1065 ;   Rosenberg  v.  Frank,  58  Cal. 

Miller,  svpra.  387,  399 ;  Williams  v.  Williams,  14  Pac. 

3  SchuU  V.  Murray,  32  Md.  9,  15,  16,  R.  (Cal.)  394,  397. 


§  155  POWER    TO   CONSTKUE    WILLS.  353 

to  ascertain  the  ani(Mint  of  legacies,  nor  enlorce  their  decrees,) 
and  to  entertain  bills  of  interpleader  (in  cases  of  conflicting 
trusts,  to  save  trustees  from  hazardous  responsibility  and  future 
litigation,  or  of  conflicting  legal  claims  against  one  who  has  no 
interest  in  the  thing  claimed,  but  is  a  mere  stakeholder). ^  It  is 
deduced  from  the  equity  jurisdiction  given  by  statute  in  cases  of 
trust  arising  in  the  settlement  of  estates,  where  the  trustees  are 
actors  and  seek  the  aid  and  direction  of  a  court  of  e(juity  in  cases 
of  doubt  and  difficulty,  and  where  conflicting  claims  are  asserted 
by  different  parties  to  the  same  property  or  rights  under  the  in- 
strument creating  the  trust  ;2  and  is  expressly  conferred  by  statute 
in  some  of  the  States.^  Where  equity  jurisdiction  is  conferred 
upon  the  probnte  court,  it  may  be  api)lied  to  for  instructions  as  to 
the  construction  of  a  will ;  '^  but  the  power  does  not  reside  in  such 
courts  unless  expressly,  or  by  necessary  implication,  conferred.^ 
Thus  an  executor,  administrator  c.  t.  a.,  or  any  party  claiming 
against  him,  may  apply  to  a  court  of  equity  to  have  his  rights  in 
the  estate  ascertained  and  settled  in  respect  of  testamentary 
trusts  which  may  be  valid  or  invalid ;  for  the  executor  holds  the 
property  in  trust  for  the  persons  to  whom  it  is  legally  bequeathed, 
and  for  those  who  are  entitled  to  it  under  the  Statute  of  Distribu- 
tions if  not  effectually  disposed  of  by  the  will.  So  in  respect  of 
property  devised,  and  where  there  is  a  mixed  trust  of  real  and 
personal  estate,  questions  may  ai'ise  as  to  the  validity  and  effect 
of  contingent  limitations,  or  other  doubtful  points,  which  it  be- 
comes necessary  to  decide  in  order  to  make  a  final  settlement, 
and  to  give  proper  instructions  and  directions  touching  the  execu- 
tion of  the  trusts.^  It  is  evident  that  application,  whether  by 
an  executor,  administrator,  or  devisee,  heir  at  law,  or  any  other 
person,  for  the  construction  of  a  will,  or  other  aid  to  the  proper 
execution  of  a  trust,  can  only  be  made  when  necessary  for  the 
present  action  of  the  court,  upon  which  it  may  enter  a  decree  or 

'  Tnyloe    ?•.    Bond,   per   Pearson,   J.,  71   Mo.  326,  vindicating  the  jurisdiction 

Busb.  Eq.  6,  15.  of  chancery  courts  by  the  majorit_v,  p.  .3-34, 

2  Trciidwellr.  Cordis,  5  Gray,  341,348;  JJ.   Hough  (p.  33'.))  and  Henry  "(p.  352) 

Mccliauics'  Hanlf  r.  Harrison,  (38  Ga.  4f)3,  iiohling  the  jurisdiction  to  reside  in  the 

409,  relying  on  Miles  v.  Peabody,  64  Ga.  probate  court. 
729.  *  Swasey  v.  Jaques,  144  ]\Iass.  1.35. 

8  Such  statutes  are  construed  in  Wil-  ^  Chadwick  v.  Chadwick,  13  Pac.  Rep. 

liams  V.  Williams,  14  Pac.  R.  (Cal  )  394,  385. 

397;  Horton  v.  Caiitwell,  108  N.  Y.  255,  «  Bowers  v.  Smith,  10  Pai.  193,   199, 

263;  First  Baptist  Church  v.  Robberson,  per  Chancellor  Walworth. 
VOL.  I.  —23 


354  JURISDICTION   OF   PROBATE   COURTS.  §  153 

direction  in  the  nature  of  a  decree ;  for  a  court  will  never  give  an 
abstract  opinion  or  advice.^  Nor  docs  the  principle  upon  which 
courts  administer  this  species  of  relief  extend  to  questions  grow- 
ing out  of  the  past  management  of  the  estate  or  trust,  involving 
an  inquiry  into  the  validity  of  such  management.^  Hence  a  court 
of  equity  will  not  judicially  construe  a  devise  on  the  application  of 
an  heir  at  law,  where  no  trust  is  involved,  for  that  is  a  purely 
legal  question  to  be  decided  by  a  court  of  law,  nor  pass  upon  any 
question  properly  triable  in  another  court.^  Nor  will  a  court  of 
equity,  without  urgent  reasons,  interfere  with  the  discretion  vested 
in  a  trustee ;  *  nor  does  the  court  take  the  place  of  counsel,  to  act 
as  general  legal  adviser  to  an  administrator  or  other  fiduciary 
respecting  his  official  duties;^  and  it  is  said  that  conrts  are  not 
bound  to  entertain  applications  for  the  construction  of  doubtful 
wills,  and  that  they  will,  in  their  discretion,  refuse  to  do  so  except 
where  great  interests  are  involved,  and  a  decision  in  the  ordinary 
course  of  litigation  would  be  attended  with  great  inconvenience, 
delay,  and  expense.^  But  having  acquired  jurisdiction  for  the 
purpose  of  construing  the  will,  they  have  authority  to  do  com- 
plete justice  between  the  parties  by  enforcing  their  adjudications,' 
unless  exclusive  jurisdiction  is  vested  in  tlie  court  of  probate,  in 
which  case  the  adjudication  becomes  binding  as  the  law  of  the 
will,  to  be  carried  out  by  the  probate  court.^ 

It  is  self-evident  that  the  decree  or  adjudication  rendered  is 
.binding  on  those  only  who  have  been  made  parties  to  the  proceed- 
ing ;  ^  hence,  if  the  judgment  of  the  court  is  invoked  on  a  par- 
ticular sentence  of   the   will,  which    is  so  connected  with  other 

1  Little  V.  Thorne,   93  N.  G.  69,  71  ;  Tyson  v.  Tyson,  100  N.  C.  360;   Woodlief 

Tayloe  v.  Bonfl,  Bush.  Eq.  5;   Wend  v.  r.  Merritt,  96  N.  C.  226 ;  Collins  f.  Collins, 

Cantwell,   36    Hun,    528;    Casperson   v.  19  Oh.  St.  468  ;  Bailey  y.  Briggs,  56  N.  Y. 

Dunn,  42  N.J.  Eq.  87;  MuUloon  ;;.  Mul-  407,   413;  Pratt   v.    Pond,    5   Allen,  59; 

doon,  133  Mass.  Ill  ;  Wilhur  o.  Maxam,  Sprague  v.  West,  127  Mass.  471. 
133  Mass.  541;  Bowen  v.   Bowen,  38  Oh.  *  Greeri;.McBeth,13Kioli.L.&Eq.254. 

St.  426,  428 ;  Rexroad  v.  Wells,  13  W.  Va.  5  ciay  v.  Gurley,  62  Ala.  14,  19. 

812 ;  Gafney  v.  Kenison,  10  Atl.  R.  (N.  H.)  6  Crosby  v.  Mason,  32  Conn.  482,  484. 

706,  citing  Greely  i.\  Nashua,  62  N.  H.  A  fortiori,  if  complete  relief  can  be  ob- 

Biit    sometimes    courts    will    decide  tained  in  the  probate  court :  Wager  v. 

questions  which  have  not  arisen,  but  are  Wager,  89  N.  Y.  161,  168;  Siddall  y.  Har- 

"  pretty  certain  "  to  arise  in  the  execution  rison,  15  Pac.  R.  130. 
of  the  trust:  PerDurfee,  C.  J.,  in  Goddard  ^  Nash  v.  Simpson,  78  Me.  142,  151; 

V.  Brown,  12  R.  I.  31,  41.  Wager  v.  Wager,  89  N.  Y.  161. 

^  Sohier  v.  Burr,  127  Mass.  221,  224.  »  Allen  v.  Barnes,  12  Pac.  R.  (Utah), 

3  Simmons  v.  Hendricks,  8  Ired.  Eq.  912,  915. 
84 ;  Bowers  v.  Smith,  10  Pai.  193,  200 ;  ^  Bowers  v.  Smith,  10  Pai.  193,  201. 


§  156  EXCLUSIVE   AND   CONCURRENT   JURISDICTION.  355 

sentences  that  these  are  necessarily  affected  by  the  adjudication, 
all  parties  interested  in  the  construction  of  such  other  sentences 
should  be  made  parties.^  And  since  a  party  must  be  presented  in 
the  precise  capacity  in  which  he  is  sought  to  be  charged,  it  is  not 
sufficient  that  one  who  may  be  interested  as  an  heir  at  law  has 
been  made  a  party  as  legatee  or  devisee.^  Where  the  application 
is  made  by  an  executor  in  good  faith,  under  circumstances  creating 
a  doubt  as  to  the  intention  of  the  testator  or  the  rights  of  lega- 
tees or  heirs,  the  costs  are  payable  out  of  the  estate  ;  ^  not  so, 
however,  where  the  proceeding  was  unnecessary  or  frivolous,  in 
which  case  the  party  causing  it  must  bear  the  costs.* 

§  156,   Exclusive  and  Concurrent  Jurisdiction.  —  The  jurisdiction 
exercised  by  probate  courts  in  the  matter  of  admitting  wills  to 
probate,  appointing  administrators,  and  taking  admin-        ^^^^.^    . 
istration  bonds,  is  exclusive  of  all  other  courts  or  tri-  risdiction  to 
bunals  in  all  the  States.     Other  matters  committed  to  and  grant 

,,...,.,.  T,  •J_^  •       l.^     '  ^        administration. 

their  jurisdiction  are,  generally,  witliin  their  exclu- 
sive original  jurisdiction,  any  party  interested  having,  in  most 
States,  a  right  to  appeal  and  have  a  trial  de  novo  in  the  appellate 
court.  From  the  nature  of  the  jurisdiction  so  conferred,  it  is  evi- 
dently essential  that  the  adjudications  upon  the  subject  matter, 
not  appealed  from  or  reversed  in  direct  proceeding,  shall  be  final, 
not  only  in  the  courts  in  which  they  are  pronounced,  but  in  all 
other  courts  where  the  same  question  arises.^  Hence  a  superior 
court  has  no  power,  in  the  exercise  of  its  chancery  superior  court 
jurisdiction,  to  set  aside  a  will  which  has  been  admitted  "„" revoke 
to  probate,  or  to  remove  an  executor,^  or  to  control  an  P'f'''«te  and 

i  '  '  to  control 

administrator  in  the  discharge  of  the  ordinary  duties  admimstrator. 
of  his  office,  while  the  administration  is  pending  in  the  Or  order  the 
probate  court,'''  or  to  subiect  the  lands  of  heirs  to  the  •'''>'''  "^  '=^"'^^ 

•^  7  J  ff,P  payment 

payment  of  debts  of  the  ancestor,  if  the  creditors  have  of  debts. 

1  Magers  v.  Edwards,  13  W.  Va.  822,  in  wliich  all  parties  except  non-residents 

831.  were  required  to  pay  tlieir  own  attorney's. 

=^  Lomerson    v.    Vroom,    11    Atl.    R.  *  Mundell  r.  Green,  108  Jlass.  277, 283. 

(N.  J.)  13.  5  See  nntp,  §  14.5;  Martin  ;;.  Roach,  1 

3  Rogers   v.   Ross,  4  John.  Ch.   608  ;  Ilarring.  477,  486. 

Morrell  i'.  Dickey,  1  John.  Ch.  153,  loG;  o  Tudor  v.  James,  5.S  Ga.  302;  Leddel 

Sawyer  i'.   Baldwin,  20  Pick.  378,  388  ;  r.  Starr,  19  N.  J.  Eq.  159,  16.3. 

Rowland  r.  Green,  108  Mass.  277,  285;  "  Overton  r.  McFarland,  15  Mo.  312, 

Drew  y.  Wakefield,  i54  Me.  291,  .300;  Jaco-  citing  Erwin  v.  Henrj',  5  Mo.  469,  and 

bus  V.  Jacobus,  20  X.  J.  Eq.  49,  54  ;  but  Miller  v.   Woodward,   8   Mo.    169,    171  ; 

see  Urey  v.  Urey,  5  S.  W.  R.  859,  864,  Pearce  r.  Calhoun,  59  Mo.  271,  273. 


356  JURISDICTION   OF   PROBATE   COURTS.  §  156 

failed  to  present  their  claims  for  allowance  in  the  probate  court  ;^ 
nor  to  allow  and  enforce  payment  of  a  claim  against  an  estate  ;2 
nor  has  a  common  law  court  power  to  try  an  action 
legacies  and  purely  probatc  in  its  character,  having  for  its  object 
distribution.  ^j^^  recognition  of  heirs,  legatees,  or  distributees,  and 
establishing  their  rights  judicially.'^ 

In  some  States,  courts  of  equity  have  retained  concurrent 
jurisdiction  with  probate  courts  in  some  respects,  chiefly  in  the 
Concurrent  matter  of  Compelling  executors  or  administrators  to 
in"o'Jm!ei'iinff  accouut.*  The  general  tendency,  however,  is  to  vest 
accounting.  exclusivc  Original  jurisdiction  over  executors,  admin- 
istrators, guardians,  curators,  etc.  in  probate  courts,  arming  them 
with  ample  powers,  both  in  the  extent  of  their  jurisdiction  and 
their  mode  of  procedure,  for  the  accomplishment  of  those  pur- 
poses which  could  not  bo  attained  in  the  English  testamentary 
courts  and  rendered  necessary  the  interference  of  equity  courts.^ 
Hence,  in  this  country,  courts  of  equity  do  not,  generally,  inter- 
fere in  the  administration  of  estates,  except  in  aid  of  the  probate 
courts,  where  the  powers  of  these  are  inadequate  to  the  purposes 
of  perfect  justice,  and  then  for  the  same  reasons  which  induce 
them  to  interfere  with  the  jurisdiction  of  common  law  courts.^ 
Where,  for  instance,  an  administrator  dies  before  settling  his 
administration  account,  and  the  same  person  is  appointed  his 
administrator  and  also  administrator  de  bonis  non  of  his  intes- 
tate,' the  proper  tribunal  before  which  to  make  the  settlement  is 
a  court  of  chancery.^     So  where  it  is  necessary  to  restrain  the 

^  Titterington  r.  Hooker,  58  Mo.  59.",.  Adams  v.  Adams,  22  Vt.  50,  58 ;  Bryan 

2  Kothman  i».  Markson,  iJl  Ivans.  542.  v.    Hickson,  40  Ga.   405,  408;    Irvin   v. 

3  Linsenbigler  r.  Gourlcy,  56  Pa.  St.  Bond,  41  Ga.  G30,  6.50 ;  Jeter  v.  Barnard, 
166,  171 ;  Hart  v.  Hoss,  22  La.  An.  517  ;  42  Ga.  43,  44. 

Lusk  V.  Benton,  30  La.  An.  686,  688.  ''  In  such  case  the  settlement  by  the 

*  Clark  II.  Perry,  5  Cal.  58;  Brown's  administrator   with   liimself  as  adminis- 

Appeal,  12  Pa.  St.  3.S3  ;  Seibert's  Appeal,  trator  dc  bonis  non  is  void  :  Hays  v.  Cock- 

19  Pa.  St.  49  ;  McLean  v.  Wade,  5-3  Pa.  reil,  41  Ala.  75,  80;  for  which  reason,  the 

St.  146 ;  Ritch  r.  Bellamy,  14  Fla.  537  ;  probate  court  being  powerless  to  act,  it 

Shoemaker    v.    Brown,    10    Kans.    383  ;  is  said  that  the  jurisdiction  of  the  court 

Lynes  v.  Hayden,   119  Mass.  482.     See  of  chancery  is  exclusive:  p.  81. 

post,  §  -500,  as  to  the  concurrent  jurisdic-  ^  CarswcU   v.    Spencer,   44  Ala.   204, 

tion  between  chancery  courts  and  courts  206.     So  if  the  surviving  is  also  admin- 

of  probate,  in  compelling  executors  and  istrator  of  the  deceased  partner  :  Heward 

administrators  to  account.  v.  Slagle,  52  111.  336,  340 ;  or  administra- 

6  Story,  Eq.  Jur.    §  543  a,   Redfield's  tor,   and    guardian    of    the    distributee  : 

(10th)  ed.  Cleere  v.   Cleere,  82  Ala.  581;  Vaughn 

6  Sto.  Eq.  Jur.  §  531,  note  1,  12th  ed. ;  v.  Suggs,  82  Ala.  357. 


§  156  EXCLUSIVE   AND   CONCURRENT   JURISDICTION.  357 

sale  of  real  estate  in  protectiun  of  the  interest  of  the  heirs,^ 
involving  the  accounting  by  the  administrator ;  ^  or  to  protect  the 
estate  against  fraud  or  waste  by  the  administrator  where  the  pro- 
bate court  is  powerless,^  or  in  case  of  collusion  between  the  exec- 
utor and  a  creditor,*  or,  generally,  where  there  is  an  evident 
mistake  or  fraud  in  the  settlement,^  or  the  probate  court,  by  rea- 
son of  its  limited  powers,  cannot  administer  proper  relief.^  So  a 
non-resident  executor,  relieved  by  the  will  from  giving  bond,  will 
be  compelled,  at  the  instance  of  a  legatee  whose  legacy  is  not  yet 
due  and  payable,  to  give  security  for  its  payment  into  court,  Avhere 
there  is  just  cause  to  apprehend  loss  ;''  and  an  executor  formerly 
domiciled  in  another  State  may  be  called  to  account  in  equity  by 
an  unpaid  legatee  ;  ^  and  where  unadministercd  assets  are  found, 
too  little  in  value  to  justify  the  opening  of  an  administration,  and 
but  one  creditor,  chancery  will  subject  them  to  the  payment  of 
that  debt.^  But  where  the  jurisdiction  of  the  probate  court  has 
once  properly  attached,  no  other  court  will  interfere,  or  go  behind 
its  judgments  or  decrees,  without  special  and  sufficient  reasons. ^^ 

The  jurisdiction  of  Federal  courts  is  conferred  upon  them  by 
the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  and  the  laws  of  Congress  in 
pursuance  thereof;  and  as  this  jurisdiction  is  inde-  t   •  .  ^-      t 

■t  '  J  Jurisdiction  of 

pendent  of  that  conferred  by  the  States  upon  their  Ftniefai  courts 

^  ...  unaffected 

own  courts,  it  is  obvious  that  it  cannot  be  affected  by  hv  state 
any  legislation   except   that   of   the  United    States. ^^     ° 
Hence  the  proceedings  in  probate  courts  are  no  bar  to  the  pro- 
ceedings HI  equity  of  a  Federal  court. ^^ 

1  McCook  V.  Pond,  72  Ga.  150.  "  Seymour  v.  Seymour,  4  John.  Ch. 

2  Finger  v.  Finger,  64  N.  C.  183,  186.  409;  Savage  v.  Benham,  17  Ala.  119, 126; 

3  Freeman  v.  Keagan,  26  Ark.  37.3,  Moren  v.  MoCown,  23  Ark.  93,  94 ;  Wo- 
378;  Ragsdale  v.  Holmes,  1  S.  C.  91,  95.  .mack   v.  Womack,  2   La.   An.   339,  341  ; 

*  Fleming  v.   McKesson,  3  Jones  Eq.  Branton   v.  Branton,  23   Ark.  569,  579  ; 

316,  318.  Deck  v.  Gerke,  12  Cal.  433,  436  ;  Search 

a  Brackenridge  v.   Holland,  2  Blackf.  v.   Search,  27  N.  J.  Eq.  137,  140,  citing 

377,  380,  referring  to  Allen   v.   Clark,   2  earlier  New  Jersey  cases  ;    Kothman   v. 

Blackf.   343;    Gafford   v.  Dickinson,   37  JNLirkson,  34  Ivans.  542, -550. 

Kans.  287.  n  Payne   v.   Hook,  7   Wall.  425,   430, 

•^  Clnrk  V.  Head,  75  Ala.  373.  and  numerous  eases  cited. 

'•  Walker  r.  Johnson,  82  Ala.  347.  ^-  Payne    >-.    Hook,   sujva  ;    Borer    v. 

8  Colbert  v.  Daniel,  32  Ala.  314,  330.  Chapman,  119  U.  S.  587,  600. 

9  Mallory  v.  Craige,  15  N.  J.  Eq.  73,  74. 


358  DOMICILIAE   AND    AN'CILLAIlY   JUKISDICTION.  §  157 


CHAPTER    XVII. 

DOMICILIAR    AND    ANCILLARY   JURISDICTION. 

§  157.  Authority  of  Representatives  limited  to  the  State  granting 
it.  —  The  property  of  deceased  persons  is  vested  by  law  in  repre- 
Principieof  sentativcs  wlio,  for  the  purposes  of  its  devolution, 
the  limitation     continue  the  person  of  the  defunct.^     The  authority 

ot  authority  ^  •' 

to  property        of  thesG  representatives  emanates  from  the  law  of  the 

witliin  the  c,     ,  -,  i  •    i        i  i      i  i    i 

State  granting    fetate  or  couutry  Under  which  they  hold  letters  testa- 

adniiuistration.    „.  £       i      •    •    •      i^-  i      •  ••    • 

mentary  or  oi  administration ;  and  since  it  is  univer- 
sally recognized  that  the  laws  of  every  State  affect  and  bind 
directly  all  property  within  its  territorial  limits  and  all  persons 
residing  therein,  whether  natural  born  citizens,  subjects,  or  aliens ; 
and  that  a  State  may,  therefore,  regulate  the  manner  and  circum- 
stances under  which  property  within  it,  whether  real  or  personal, 
shall  be  held,  transmitted,  and  enforced,^  it  is  evident  that  no 
one  can,  in  a  representative  capacity,  whether  a  testato  or  ab  in- 
testato,  meddle  or  interfere  with  a  succession  before  probate  of  the 
will  or  grant  of  administration,  or  some  other  formal  induction 
into  the  property  in  the  forum  of  the  country  or  State  where  it  is 
Letters  testa-  found.^  Tliis  is  the  ncccssity  of  the  rule,  recognized 
administration  ^^^  England*  as  Well  as  in  the  Federal^  and  State  courts 
have  no  extra-    Qf  America,^  that  letters  testamentary  and  of  adminis- 

territonal  '  •' 

effect.  tration  have  no  legal  force  or  effect  beyond  the  terri- 

1  Ante,  §  10  ;  post,  §  170  ;  Westlake,  ^  The  cases  so  holding  are  very  nu- 
Private  International  Law,  §  290.  merous  ;  among  them  are,  in  Alabama  • 

2  Sto.  Confl.  L.  §  18 ;  Minor  v.  Card-  Broughton  v.  Bradley,  34  Ala.  694,  708  ; 
well,  37  Mo.  350,  353  ;  Vauglian  v.  North-  Arkansas  :  Clark  v.  Holt,  16  Ark.  257, 
up,  15  Pet.  1,  5.  263  ;  California  :  Brown  v.  Gaslight  Co., 

3  Westl.  Pr.  Int.  L.  §  201 ;  Fenwick  v.  58  Cal.  426  ;  Connecticut  :  Hobart  v. 
Rears,  1  Cr.  259,282;  Graeme  v.  Harris,  Turnpike  Co.,  15  Conn.  145,  147,  Geor- 
1  Dall.  456;  Patterson  v.  Pagan,  18  S.  C.  gia :  Turner  v.  Linam,  55  Ga.  253,  255; 
584,  citing  Dial  v.  Gary,  14  S.  C.  573,  579.  Illinois  :  Hickox  v.  Frank  (showing  that 

*  Wms.  Ex.  [362].  the    authority    of    a    foreign     adminis- 

5  Dixon  V.  Ramsay,  3  Cr.  319,  323;  trator  depends  upon  the  law  of  the  fo- 

Kerr  v.  Moon,  9  Wheat.  565,  571;  Noo-  rum),  102  111.    660;    Iowa:    McClure   v. 

nan  v.  Bradley,  9  Wall.  .394,  399  et  seq. ;  Bates,  12  Iowa,  77  ;  Indiana ;    Naylor  v. 

Eells  V.  Holder,  2  McCrary,  622.  Moody,  2  Blaekf.  247 ;  Kentucky":  Dor- 


§  158  ADMINISTRATION   IN   DIFFERENT   COUNTRIES.  359 

torial  limits  within  which  the  authority  of  the  State  or  country 
granting  them  is  recognized  as  law.^ 

§  158.   Administration  of  same  Successions  in   different  Countries. 
— It  follows  from  this  doctrine,  that  where  a  person  dying  leaves 
property  in  several  different  jurisdictions,  the  legal  Same  person 
reprcscntativcs  of  such  person  must  derive  their  au-  tur'in  difierent 
thority  from  each  of  as  many  sovereignties  as  may  ^^'^^^^'^ 
have  jurisdiction  over  the  property  so  left,  hecause  the  territorial 
element  of  the  law,  or  rather  of  the  sovereignty  from  which  the 
law  emanates,  permits  no  other  sovereignty  to  exercise  authority 
o^er  it,  and  each  therefore  must  itself  create  the  legal  ownership 
necessary  in  its  devolution.^     This  authority  or  legal  ownership 
may  be,  and  except  in  the  States  in  which  non-residence  disquali- 
fies a  person  from  the  office  of  executor  or  administrator'^  gen- 
erally is,  conferred  upon  the  same  person  in  several  or  all  of  the 
States  in  which  the  deceased  person  left  property  ;  for  a  testator 
may  appoint  the  same  or  different  executors  in  different  coun- 
tries,* and  it  is  held  that  ex  comitate,  and  in  order  to  preserve  as 
far  as  possible  the  singleness  of  administration,  the  person  who 
obtains  administration  as  next  of  kin  in  the  jurisdiction  of  the 
intestate's  domicil,  or  his  attorney,  is  entitled  to  a  similar  grant 
in  any  other  jurisdiction  where  the  deceased  has  per-  but  the  admin- 
sonal  estate  ;^  but  the  administration  in  each  State  is  eac||'state"is 
wholly  independent,  whether  in  the  hands  of  the  same  independent. 
or  of  different  executors  or  administrators ,6  in  no  wise  impaired, 

sey  V.  Dorsey,  5  J.  J.  Marsh.  280 ;  Kan-  Vermont :  Vauglin  v.  Barret,  5  Vt.  333, 

sas:    Moore   v.  Jordan,   36   Kans.   271;  336;  Virginia:  Dickinson  v.  McCraw,  4 

Louisiana:  Succession  of  Roffignac,  21  La.  Rami.  158. 

An.  364  ;  Maine  :  Smith  v.  Guild,  34  Me.  ^  Story,  Confl.  L.  §§  512,  513  ;  3  Redf. 

443;    Maryland:    Barton  y.  Higgins,  41  on  Wills,  24,  note  7,  and  authorities  cited; 

Md.  539,  546  ;  Massachusetts  :  Trecothick  2  Kent,   431   et   seq.;    Naylor  i'.  Moffat, 

V.  Austin,  4  Mas.  16,  32,  and  cases  cited  29  Mo.  126 ;  Wright  v.  Gilbert,  51   Md. 

by  Story,  J. ;  Michigan  :  Sheldon  v.  Rice,  146,  152. 

30  Mich.  296,  302  ;  Mississippi :  Riley  v.  -  Westlake,  Pr.  Int.  L.  §  291 ;  Story, 

Moseley,  44  Miss.  37,  43  ;  Missouri:  Es-  Confl.  L.  §  513  et  seq. 

tate  of   Ames  &  Co.,  52  Mo.  290,  293 ;  »  As  to  which  see  post,  §§  2.30,  241. 

New   Hampshire:    Taylor  v.  Barron,  35  *  Hunter  v.   Bryson,  5  G.   &  J.  483; 

N.  H.  48  i ;  New  York :  Doolittle  v.  Lewis,  Schultztv  Pulver,  11  Wend.  361 ;  Fletcher 

7  Johns.  Ch.  45  ;  North  Carolina  :  San-  v.  Wier,  7  Dana,  345,  349 ;   Sherman  v. 

ders  V.  Jones,  8  Ired.  Eq.  246;  Grant  v.  Page,  85  N.  Y.  123,  128. 

Reese,  94  N.  C.  720,  729 ;  Oliio  :  Nowler  ^  Westl.  Pr.  Int.  L.  §  292,  and  author- 

V.  Coit,  1  Oh.  519  ;  Pennsylvania  :  Sayre  ities  there  cited  ;  and  see  jtost,  §  246,  as  to 

V.  Helme,  61   Pa.  St.  299  ;   South  Caro-  appointment  of  administrators ;  Woodruff 

lina:    Carmichael    v.    Ray,  1  Rich,  llfi;  i-.  Schnltz,  49  Iowa,  430,  431. 

Tennessee :  Carr  v.  Lowe,  7  Heisk    84 ;         *^  So  that  the  executor  in  one  State  is 


360 


DOMICILIAR   AND   ANCILLARY   JURISDICTION. 


§158 


abridged,  or  affected  by  a  previous,  and  a  fortiori  by  a  subsequent, 
grant  of  administration  in  another  State.^     There  is 

_ no  privity  between  administrators  in  different  States,^ 

different  States  althouo'h  there  mav  be  between  executors  of  the  same 

of  same  estate,  »  •' 

testator  in  different  States,^  who,  at  common  law,  arc 
said  to  be  in  privity  as  to  tlie  creditors. 
The  administration  granted  in  the  State  of  the  domicil  of  the 
decedent,  is  the  principal,  primary,  original,  or  chief 
administration,  because  the  law  of  the  domicil  governs 
the  distribution  of  the  personal  property,  whether  to 
heirs,  distributees,  or  legatees  ;  ^  while  that  grant- 
ed in  any  other  country  is  ancillary  or  auxiliary.^ 
Both  are  local,  however,  to  the  jurisdiction  in  which  they  are 
granted,  being  limited  to  the  chattels  having  a  particular  situs,^ 
independent  of  each  other,  save  that  the  origin  and  devolution  of 
Judgment  the  property  in  each  may  be  the  same  J  It  follows 
i^sn^atorinone"  from  this  waut  of  privity  that  a  judgment  obtained 


No  privity  be 
tween  admin- 
istrators in 


but  there  mav 
be  between 
executors. 


Principal  ad- 
ministration 
is  in  State  of 
domicil ; 
law  of  donncil 
governs  distri- 
bution of  per- 
sonal property 


not  bound  to  inventory,  or  in  any  wise 
account  for,  the  assets  of  another  executor 
in  another  State  :  Shenuau  v.  Page,  85 
N.  Y.  123. 

1  Henderson  v.  Clarke,  4  Litt.  277 ; 
Pond  ),'.  Makepeace,  2  Met.  (Mass.)  114; 
Burbank  v.  Payne,  17  La.  An.  15 ;  Aspden 
V.  Nixon,  4  How.  467,  497  ;  McLean  v. 
Meek,  18  How.  IG;  Banta  v.  Moore,  15 
N.  J.  Eq.  97  ;  Apperson  ;'.  Bolton,  29  Ark. 
418,  435 ;  Picqiiet,  Appellant,  5  Pick.  65  ; 
Equitable  Life  Assurance  Soc.  v.  Vo^rel, 
76  Ala.  441,  446 ;  Grant ;;.  Reese,  94  N.  C. 
720,  729 ;  Graveley  v.  Graveley,  25  S.  C. 
1,19. 

2  Taylor  v.  Barron,  35  N.  H.  484  ; 
Dent  V.  Ashley,  Hemps.  54 ;  King  v.  Clarke, 
2  Hill  (S.  C.)  Ch.  611 ;  Freeman's  A])peal, 
68  Pa.  St.  151 ;  Wells  v.  Wells,  35  Miss. 
638;  Keaton  v.  Campbell,  2  Humph.  224  ; 
Stacy  V.  Thrasher,  6  How.  44,  59 ;  Hill  v. 
Tucker,  13  How.  458,  466;  Creswell  v. 
Slack,  68  Iowa,  110,  11-3. 

3  The  privity  between  executors  in 
different  States,  appointed  by  the  same 
testator,  is  based  upon  the  common  law 
doctrine,  that  the  executor  derives  his 
authority  from  the  will,  while  that  of 
the  administrator  rests  solely  upon  the 
appointment  by  the  probate  court  :  Hill 
V.  Tucker,  supra ;  Goodall  v.  Tucker,  13 


How.  469.  This  reason  fails,  however,  in 
those  States  in  wiiich  the  authority  of 
the  executor  is  likewise  deduced  from  his 
appointment  by  the  court;  and  is  not 
applicable  to  an  administrator  de  bonis  non 
cum  testainento  anuexo :  Grant  v.  Reese, 
94  N.  C.  720,  7.30. 

*  "  This,"  says  Story,  J.,  in  Harvey  v. 
Richards,  1  Mas.  381,  402,  "  although  once 
a  question  vexed  with  much  ingenuity  and 
learning  in  courts  of  law,  is  now  so  com- 
pletely settled  by  a  series  of  well  con- 
sidered decisions,  that  it  cannot  be  brought 
into  judicial  doubt."  See  Russell  r.  Mad- 
den, 95  111.  485,  491.  A  noteworthy  ex- 
ception to  this  general  principle  is  made 
in  Mississippi,  where  the  statute  directs 
personal  property  to  be  distributed  ac- 
cording to  the  laws  of  that  State ;  post, 
§168. 

s  Story,  Confl.  L.  §  518;  Spraddling  v. 
Pipkin,  15  Mo.  118;  Goodall  v.  Marshall, 
11  N.  H.  88  ;  Ordronaux  v.  Helie,  3 
Sandf.  Ch.  512;  Clark  v.  Clement,  33 
N.  H.  563. 

«  Wcstl.  Pr.  Int.  L.  §  292,  p.  281 ; 
Green  v.  Rugely,  23  Tex.  539  ;  McCord 
r.  Thompson,  92  Ind.  565;  Dial  v.  Gary 
14  S.  C.  573;  Reynolds  o.  McMullen,  55 
Mich.  568. 

'  Story,  Confl.  L.  §  522. 


§  159  JUEISDICTION   OF   TROPERTY   REMOVED.  361 

against  one  furnishes  no  cause  of  action  against  an-  state  not  valid 
other,  so  as  to  affect  assets  under  the  control  of  the  '"  another, 
other ;  ^  and  it  is  immaterial  that  the  judgment  was  obtained 
against  the  administi-ator  of  the  foreign  jurisdiction  in  person, 
npon  due  notice  to  him,^  or  even  upon  his  voluntary  appearance.^ 
Nor  will  a  judgment  in  favor  of  a  foreign  administrator  against 
the  debtor  of  his  intestate  support  an  action  against  the  debtor  by 
an  administrator  in  another  State.*  But  a  question  determined 
by  the  courts  of  a  sister  State,  so  as  to  become  res  judicata  be- 
tween the  parties,  cannot  be  reopened  by  the  same  parties  in 
another  State.^ 

§  159.  Jurisdiction  of  Property  removed  to  another  Country  after 
Owner's  Death.  —  But  it  may  be  that  the  situs  of  property  is 
changed  after  the  death  of  the  owner,  and  before  any 

.    .  .       .  .  T  1      Property  re- 

admnnstrator   reduces   it   nito    possession.     In   such  moved  from 

T      .    .    ,       , .  ,  1      one  State  to 

case.  Since  every  administration  operates  on  such  another,  after 
property  of  the  deceased  as  is  at  the  time  of  the  grant,  goe^To^ilr'^' 
or  shall  be  at  any  time  during  its  existence,  within  the  fj'st  admims- 

•^  °  trator  who 

jurisdiction  of  the  court  granting  the  same,^  the  ques-  seizes  it  within 

.  ,  ..  ,        .^,...  ,,  ,.      liis  jurisdiction. 

tion  determining  the  jurisdiction  is  whether  there  is 
or  is  not  any  vacancy  in  the  legal  title  to  the  property  where  and 
when  found.     For  if  goods  are  once  in  the  legal  possession  of  an 
administrator  duly  appointed,  they  cannot  afterward  be  affected 


1  Brndie  v.  Brickley,  2  Rawie,   431  ;  the  extent  of  depriving  the  courts  of  tlie 

Low  i\  Bartlett,  8  Allen,  259;  Aspden  v.  State  in  which  lands  lie  from  construing 

Nixon,  4  How.  467  ;  Stacey  r.  Thrasher,  6  the  will  as  to  such  realty.     Where  a  tes- 

How.  44;  McLean  v.  Meek,  18  How.  16;  tator  by  a  single  will  devises  lands  lying 

Ela  V.  Edwards,  13  Allen,  48;   Merrill  v.  in  two  or  more  States,  the  courts  of  such 

N.  E.  Ins.  Co.,  103  Mass.  245;  Taylor  v.  States   will  construe  it  as  to  the  lands 

Barron,   35  \.  H.  484;   Dent  v.  Ashley,  situated  in  them  respectively  :  McCartney 

Hemps  54  ;  King  v.  Clarke,  2  Hill  (S.  C.)  v.  Osburn,  118  111.  403,  411  ;    s   c.  121  III. 

Ch.  till ;  Slauter  v.  Chenowith,  7  Ind.  211 ;  408  ;  Staigg  v.  Atkinson,  144  Mass.  564. 
Rosenthal    v.   Renick,   44  111.    202,   207  ;  <=  Thus  the  statute  of  Maine  provides 

Price  V.  Mace,  47  Wis.  23  ;    Creswell  c  that  letters  of  administration  are  granted 

Slack,  68  Iowa,  110,  113.  to  persons  dying  out  of  the  State,  not  only 

^  Rentschler  v.  Jamison,  6  Mo.  App.  when  they  leave  property  to  be  adminis- 

135,  136.  tered  in  the  county,  but  when  such  prop- 

3  Judy  V.  Kelley,  11  111.  211,  214.  erty  '•  is  afterward  found  therein":  Saun- 

*  Talmage  v.  Chapel,  16  Mass.  71.  ders  v.  Weston,  74  Me.  85,  89,  91.     And 

^  Hence,  where  a  court,  having  com-  the   debt   due    to  a  resident   of  anotlier 

petent    jurisdiction    to   construe   a    will,  State  from  one  removing  into  the  State 

adjudicates  thereon,  such  adjudication  is  of  the   forum    after  the  creditor's  death 

binding  upon  the  courts  of  other  States  :  authorizes  the  appointment  of  an  admin is- 

Washhurn   v.  Van    Steenwyk,  32  Minn,  trator  on  the  estate  of  the  creditor  :  Pin- 

336,  357.    But  this  doctrine  does  not  go  to  ney  i\  McGregory,  102  Mass.  186,  189. 


362  DOMIOILIAR    AND   ANCILLARY   JURISDICTION.  §  160 

by  an  administration  granted  in  another  jurisdiction  to  which 
they  may  be  removed,  because  there  is  then  no  vacancy  in  the 
legal  ownership ;  they  are,  technically,  no  longer  the  goods  of  the 
deceased,  but  of  the  administrator  of  the  jurisdiction  from  which 
they  were  removed.^  But  if  the  goods  have  never  been  in  posses- 
sion of  the  administrator,  although  they  be  removed  from  the 
jurisdiction  where  he  might,  but  did  not,  take  possession  of  them, 
Without  regard  ^^^  administrator  of  the  jurisdiction  to  which  they  are 
in  the  ^  rain  of  ^akcu  may  do  so,  without  regard  to  priority  in  the 
administration,  grant  of  the  respective  administration.  Thus,  where 
stage-coaches  and  stage-horses  belonged  to  a  line  running  from 
one  State  to  another,  it  was  said  that,  if  there  had  been  different 
administrators  in  the  two  States,  "  the  property  must  have  been 
considered  as  belonging  to  that  administrator  who  first  reduced  it 
into  possession  within  the  limits  of  his  own  State."  ^  So,  also, 
ships  and  cargoes,  and  the  proceeds  thereof,  may  be  situated  in  a 
foreign  country  at  the  time  of  the  owner's  death  ;  but  since  they 
proceed  according  to  their  usage,  on  their  voyages  and  return  to 
the  home  port  they  are  properly  taken  possession  of  and  admin- 
istered by  the  administrator  of  the  forum  domicilii.^ 

§  160.  Legal  Status  of  Foreign  Administrators. — No  executor  or 
administrator  can,  in  his  official  capacity,  originate  or  maintain 
Foreign  admin-  ^^^  action  in  the  courts  of  any  country,  save  that  which 
istratorcan        j^g^g  nrrantcd  him  letters  testamentary  or  of  adminis- 

maintaiii  no  o  ./ 

action  as  such,    tratiou,*  without  authority  from  the  country  in  which 

unless  author- 
ized by  statute,  he  brings  the  action  ;  nor  collect  rents,^  or  in  any 

manner  intermeddle  with  the  property  of  the  deceased  in  such 

country.^     The  strict  correlative  of  this  proposition  is,  that  no  ex- 

1  Westl.  Pr.  Int.  L.  §  295.  See  also  *  Ante,  §  157,  and  authorities  ;  Perkins 
In  re  Hughes,  95  N.  Y.  55,  62.  v.  Williams,  2  Root,  462 ;  Nicole  v.  Mum- 

2  Orcutt  V.  Orms,  3  Pai.  459,  465 ;  ford,  Kirby,  270 ;  Oilman  v.  Oilman,  54 
Wells  y.  Miller,  45  111.  382.  But  in  North  Me.  453;  McAnulty  v.  McClay,  16  Neb. 
Carolina  an  administrator  was  held  liable  418  ;  Lewis  v.  Adams,  7  Pac.  Rep.  779  ; 
for  negroes  sent  out  of  the  State  to  an  s.  c.  8  Pac.  R.  619 ;  Barclift  v.  Treece,  77 
administrator  in  Tennessee  before  he  Ala.  528  ;  Kropff  r.  Poth,  19  Fed.  Rep. 
qualified  as  administrator,  on  the  ground  200;  Moore  v.  Jordan,  36  Kan.  271 ;  Gib- 
that  his  appointment  related  back  to  the  son  v.  Ponder,  40  Ark.  195,  199. 

time  of  his  intestate's  death,  and  he  might  ^  Smith  v.  Smith,  13  Ala.  329;  Morrill 

have  reduced  them  into  possession,  and  v.   Morrill,  1   Allen,- 1.32;    Rutherford  v. 

maintained  an  action  for  them  in  the  State  Clark,  4  Bush,  27;  Patterson  v.  Pagan, 

where  appointed,  or  elsewhere:   Plummer  18  S.  C.  584;  Eells  i'.  Holder,  2  McCrary, 

V.  Brandon,  5  Ired.  Eq.  190,  194  et  seq.  622. 

3  Story,  Confl.  L.  §  520 ;  Whart.  Confl.  6  Cabanne  v.  Skinker  -56  Mo.  357,  367, 
L.  §  633 ;  Wells  v.  Miller,  supra.  and  authorities  cited  by  Judge  Sherwood. 


§  160  LEGAL   STATUS   OF   FOllEIGN   ADMINISTRATOR.  8G3 

editor  or  administrator  can  be  subjected  to  an  action,  Nor  be  sued 
in  his  oHicial  capacity,  in  the  State  or  country  in  which  *^ '*"*'  * 
lie  is  not  recognized  as  such  ;  ^  nor  is  he  accountable,  except  in 
the  forum  from  which  he  obtained  his  authority,  for  ^^^^  authority 
assets  collected  in  a  forciorn  State  '^  by  virtue  of  his  may  he  mn- 

°  .  »  furred  hv  com- 

office.     By  the  comity  of  States  the  authority  of  dom-  ity  of  tiie 
iciliar  administrators  is  recognized  in  different  juris- 
dictions to  a  greater  or  less  extent  ;3  and  it  is  a  matter  concerning 
which  the  authorities  differ,  whether  an  administrator  Dut^of  a^. 
is  guilty  of  laches  or  nctjligence  in  failing  to  collect  ministrators  to 

0  J  o    o  o  ^        collect  assets 

assets  beyond  the  jurisdiction  of  his  forum,  or  obtain-  in  foreign 

.  P        .  .      .    ,.      .  .  ,  .   ,     .,  States. 

ing  letters  in  a  foreign  jurisdiction  in  which  there 
may  be  property  belonging  to  the  estate.*  If  he  collect  such 
property  in  a  foreign  jurisdiction  without  authority,  either  under 
his  domiciliar  lettei's,  or  by  new  letters  there  obtained,  he  is 
liable  to  be  sued  in  the  courts  of  the  foreign  State,  as  one  unlaw- 
fully intermeddling  with  the  effects,  by  any  creditor  or  other 
person  interested ;  he  would  in  such  case  be  clearly  liable  as  an 
executor  de  son  tort,  wherever  this  species  of  liability  is  still  rec- 
ognized,^  "  for  it  would  not  lie  in  his  mouth  to  deny  that  he  had 
rightfully  received  such  assets,  and  he  could  not  rightfully  receive 
them  except  as  executor  "  ;  ^  or  as  executor  de  jure,  if  the  inter- 

1  Vaughan  v.  Nortliup,  15  Pet.  1,  5;  ministration  out  of  his  own  State,  in  San- 
Caldwell  r.  Harding,  5  Blatclif.  501 ;  Curie  ders  v.  Jones,  8  Ired.  Eq.  246,  citing  earlier 
V.  Moor,  1  Dana,  445  ;  Garden  v.  Hunt,  authorities ;  Cabanne  i-.  Skinker,  56  Mo. 
Cheves,  42,  Part  II.  ;  Bcelcr  v.  Dunn,  367  ;  that  it  is  devastavit  if  he  refuse  to 
3  Head,  87 ;  Allsup  v.  Allsup,  10  Yerg.  procure  such  letters  if  the  interest  of  the 
28.3;  Winter  v.  Winter,  Walker  (Miss.),  estate  requires:  Helnie  r.  Sanders,  3 
211;  Sparks  v.  White,  7  Humph.  86;  Hawks,  563;  but  it  is  clearly  his  duty  to 
Davis  f.  Phillips,  32  Tex.  564  ;  Hedenberg  collect  assets  in  a  foreign  jurisdiction  if 
V.  Hedenberg,  46  Conn.  30,  33 ;  Magraw  he  can  do  so  under  the  authority  of  his 
V.  Irwin,  87  Pa.  St.  139, 142,  disapproving  letters  in  the  State  of  the  domicil ;  Shultz 
earlier  Pennsylvania  cases  (Swearingen  v.  Pulver,  3  Pai.  182  ;  s.  c.  11  Wend.  361; 
V.  Pendleton,  4  S.  &  R.  389,  and  Evans  v.  Klein  v.  French,  57  Miss.  662;  see  also 
Tatem,  9  S.  &  R.  252)  ;  Musselman's  §  162  and  notes.  Wiiere  he  has  posses- 
Appeal,  101  Pa.  St.  165,  170;  Durie  v.  sion  of  the  note  of  a  person  living  in 
Blauvelt,  49  N.  J.  L.  114.  another  State,  it  is  his  duty  to  make  rea- 

2  Succession  of  St.  John,  6  La.  An.  sonable  effort  to  collect  it  without  suit : 
192;  Brownlee  v.  Lockwood,  20  N.  J.  Eq.  Grant  v.  Reese,  94  N.  C.  720,  731. 

239;    Norton   i'.   Palmer,   7    Ciish.   523;  &  Campbell  u.  Tousey,  7  Cow.  64.   The 

Selectmen    v.    Boylston,    2    Mass.    384  ;  remedy   by   action   against  any   one   as 

Campbell  r.  Sheldon,  13  Pick.  8,  23 ;  Mc-  executor    de   son   tort   was    subsequently 

Namara  v.  McNamara,  62  Ga.  200,  204 ;  abolislied  in  New  York  by  statute  :  Brown 

Cocks  V.  Varney,  42  N.  J.  Eq.  514.  v.  Brown,  1  Barb.  Ch.  189,  195. 

3  See  pos^.  §§  161,  167.  «  Story,   Confl.   L.   §  514;   Allsup  v. 
*  It  is  held  that  an  administrator  is  Allsup,  10  Yerg.  283,  285. 

under  no  legal  obligation  to  procure  ad- 


364  DOMICILIAR   AND   ANCILLARY   JURISDICTION.  §  IGl 

meddling  was  not  a  tortious  one.^  Where  a  testatrix  appoints 
different  executors  for  effects  in  different  States,  and  all  of  them 
qualify,  the  executors  in  one  State  are  not  bound  to  inventory  or 
account  for  the  effects  in  another  State,  being  there  administered.^ 
§  161.  Validity  of  voluntary  Payment  to  Foreign  Administrator. 
—  Upon  the  question  of  the  validity  of  the  voluntary  payment  of 
Voluntary  pay-  a  dcbt  to  a  foreign  executor  or  administrator,  the 
debtor  to  a  authorities  are  not  unanimous.  Chancellor  Kent  held 
^[n'ift^ator  such  a  payment  to  be  a  good  discharge  of  the  debt.^ 
IS  a  valid  dis-     ^j^^j  jj-^  Massachusctts  it  was  asserted,  that  voluntary 

charge  if  paid  '  •' 

where  he  had     payment  of  a  debt  by  the  citizen  of  another  State, 

jurisdiction  .iri  ii'- 

to  sue.  in  the  state  where  the  administrator  received  his  ap- 

pointment, is  a  good  bar  to  an  action  for  the  same  debt  by  an 
administrator  of  the  State  of  the  debtor's  domicil;*  a  propo- 
sition resulting  of  necessity  from  the  liability  of  the  debtor  to 
pay  wherever  he  may  be  reached  by  the  creditor.^  Nelson,  J.,  of 
the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States,  says :  "  There  is  doubt- 
less some  plausibility  in  it  [the  objection  to  the  validity  of  the 
voluntary  payment  to  a  foreign  administrator] ,  growing  out  of  the 
interest  of  the  home  creditors.  But  it  has  not  been  regarded  of 
sufficient  weight  to  carry  with  it  the  judicial  mind  of  the  country. 
With  the  exception  of  the  case  in  the  State  of  Tennessee,  none 
have  been  referred  to,  nor  have  our  own  researches  found  any, 
maintaining  the  invalidity  of  the  payment.  The  question  has 
been  directly  and  indirectly  before  several  of  the  courts  of  the 
States,  and  the  opinions  have  all  been  in  one  direction, — in 
favor   of  the  validity."  ^     So  it  is  held  that  the  voluntary  pay- 

^  Tunstall  i\  Pollard,  11  Leigh,  1,  27,  the  sale  of  premises  in  New  York  secur- 

retracting  an  intimation  to  the  contrary  ing  the  payment  of  a  hond  payahle  by 

in  Pugh  V.  Jones,  6  Leigh,  299 ;  Marcy  v.  a    citizen   of   New   York  to  a  deceased 

Marcy,  32  Conn.  308.     When  a  debtor  in  resident  of  Vermont,  "  his  heirs,  execu- 

Pennsylvania  of  a  decedent  dying  domi-  tors,  and  administrators,"  by  the  admin- 

ciled  in  New  Jersey  has  voluntarily  pnid  istrators   of    the  intestate   appointed   in 

to  the  foreign  executor,  he  cannot  subse-  Vermont. 

quently,  when  such  executor  shall  have  *  Stevens  v.  Gaylord,  11  Mass.  256, 

obtained  ancillary  letters  in  Pennsylvania,  264. 

claim  as  a  creditor  to  have  the  ancillary  &  Story,  Confl.  L.  §  515,  and  note  3 ; 

accountant  surcharged  with  the  debt  so  Equitable  Association  v.  Vogel,  76  Ala. 

paid  him,  where  he  has  already  accounted  441,  448. 

for  the   same    in    the    domicil  :    Gray's  e  Wilkins  v.  Ellett,  9  Wall.  740,  742, 

Appeal,  116  Pa.  St.  256.  referred   to  with  approval  in  Wyman  v. 

2  Sherman  v.  Page,  85  N.  Y.  123,  128.  Halstead,  109  U.  S.  654.     The  cases  ro- 

3  In   Poolittle  v.  Lewis,  7  John.   Ch.  ferred  to  by  Justice  Nelson  are  Williams 
45,  49,  which  turned  upon  the  validity  of  v.  Storrs,  6  John.  Ch.  353 ;  Doolittle  v. 


§  161  VALIDITY   OF   VOLUNTARY   PAYMENT.  365 

ment  of  a  debt   to    a  forci<'-ii  adiuinistrator,  or  the  Or  if  there  be 

"  .  , .       .  „    III!  ailmiiiistra- 

relcase  of  a  debt  by  such,  would  not  be  held  invalid  if  tion  in  the  State 

,  .  1      •     •    ,       ,         •       ,1         1    1  i      ?       1         •    -I    •    i.  of  the  debtor's 

there  is  no  administrator  in  the  debtor  s  domicil  inter-  domicii. 
fcring ;  ^  and  that  in  the  absence  of  a  domestic  administrator  pay- 
ment of  debts  could  only  be  made  to  a  foreign  executor.^  The 
case  of  Trecothick  v.  Austin,  sometimes  relied  on  in  support  of 
the  view  that  a  foreign  executor  may  sue  without  probate  of 
the  will  in  the  State  of  the  forum,  establishes  the  view  of  Judge 
Story,  as  an  obiter  dictum,  that  a  foreign  executor  p„reign admin- 
may  maintain  a  suit  in  his  own  right,  but  not  in  his  istratar  muv 

-'  ^  _  sue,  ]f  he  does 

representative  capacity.^     In  North  Carolina  one  who  so  in  his  iiuu- 
paid  over  the   money  left  by  a  deceased  resident  of 
Georgia,  who  died  while  on  a  visit  in  North  Carolina,  to  an  ad- 
ministrator in  Georgia,  was  held  not  liable  as  executor  de  son  fort 
to  a  Georgia  creditor,  but  the  question  of  liability  to  a  creditor  in 
North  Carolina  was  expressly  reserved.'^     On  the  other  hand,  it  is 
held  directly  and  unqualifiedly  that  payment  to  a  for-  payment  to 
eign  executor  or  administrator  is  void,  and  no  defence  ist'rafor  nut"'° 
to  the  demand  of  an  administrator  duly  appointed  in  |"^o,ne%^|"a(i. 
the  State  of  the  debtor's  domicil.^     On   principle,  it  miuistrator. 
would  seem  to  result  from  the  limitation  of  the  validity  of  letters 
testamentary  and  of  administration  to  the  State  or  country  grant- 
ing them,  that  foreign  executors  and  administrators  can  bind  the 
estate  of  a  decedent  to  the  extent  only  to  which  the  law  under  au- 
thority of  which  they  act  is  recognized  by  the  comity  of  the  State 
in  which  the  property  may  be  found  ;  and  such  comity  may  be  ex- 
pressed by  act  of  its  legislature,  or  the  decisions  of  its  courts.^ 


Lewis,  supra  ;  Vroora  v.  Van  Home,  10  ^  4  Mas.  16,  32.     See  §  162. 

Pai.  549,  557  ;  Schulz  i-.  Piilver,  11  Wend.  *  Nisbet  i-.  Stewart,  2  Dev.  &  Bat.  24. 

361 ;  Trecothick  v.  Austin,  4  Mas.  16,  33  ;  5  Bartlett  v.   Hyde,  3   Mo,   490  ;    Mc- 

Stevens  v.  Gaylord,  11  Mass.  256;  Nisbet  Cord  v.  Tliompson,  92  Ind.  565;  Stone  v. 

V.    Stewart,    2    Uev.   &  B.   24 ;    Parsons  Scripture,   4    Lans.    186,    reviewing    the 

1:   Lyman,  20  N.  Y.  103,  108.     Some  of  New  York  cases,  supra,  and  holding  that 

these  decisions  contain  mere  dicta  or  in-  the  power  of  an  administrator  appointed 

timations  on  the  point  under  considera-  in  tlie  domicil  of  tlie  debtor  is  exclusive 

tion,  and  are  referred  to  in  the  text.  of   tliat   of  any  foreign  executor  or  ad- 

1  Williams  v.  Storrs,  supra;  Vroom  v.  ministrator;  Young  i-.  O'Neal,  3  Sneed, 
Van  Home,  supra  ;  Schulz  i'.  Pulver,  11  55,  holding  that  the  payment  might  be 
Wend.  301  ;  Citizens'  Bank  v.  Sharp,  53  good  if  made  in  the  State  under  which 
Md.  521;  Wilkins  v.  Ellett,  108  U.  S.  the  foreign  administrator  holds  his  ap- 
256,  259  ;  Luce  v.  Railroad,  63  N.  H.  588,  pointment. 

591.  6  Story,  Confl.  L.  §§  514,  515  a;  Westl. 

2  Parsons  v.  Lyman,  20  N.  Y.  103,  113.  Pr.  Int.  L.  §  296,  citing  Whyte  v.  Rose, 


866  DOMICILIAR   AND   ANCILLARY   JURISDICTION.  §  162 

Hence  a  voluntary  payment  to  a  foreign  executor  or  adminis- 
trator, unless  authorized  by  such  comity,  is  void,  and  no  defence 
against  the  claim  of  an  administrator  of  the  State  where  the 
debtor  or  property  is  found  ;  but  will  be  good  where  it  does  not 
conflict  with  such  administration.^ 

§  162.    Extra-territorial   Validity    of    title   once   vested.  —  Where 

the  legal  title  to  the  intestate's  or  testator's  chattels  has  been 

fully  vested  in  the  executor  or  administrator,  it  is  ob- 

Title  onc6  <ic-  • 

quired  follows  vious  that  lic  may  remove  them,  or  follow  them  into  a 
eveiyw  ere.  foreign  jurisdiction  without  forfeiting  or  losing  this 
ownership,  for  "  the  title  to  personal  property  duly  acquired  by 
the  lex  loci  rei  sitce  will  be  deemed  valid  and  be  respected  as  a  law- 
ful and  perfect  title  in  every  other  country."  ^  Hence  he  and  his 
assignee  or  vendee  may  sue  for  and  recover  them  in  a  foreign 
jurisdiction  without  a  grant  of  new  administration  there.^  Upon 
Test  is  whether  ^^^^^  principle,  a  foreign  executor  or  administrator 
the  suit  can  be   may  maintain   an   action   on  a   judgment   recovered 

brought  in  the  ^  .  inn 

individual  agamst  the  debtor  m  another  State,  tor  such  suit  need 
capaci  3 .  ^^^  j^^  brought  in  the  rejjresentative  capacity  of  the 

plaintiff,^  as  well  as  on  a  contract  made  by  the  defendant  with 
the  foreign  executor  or  administrator  personally ;  ^  and  it  is  not  a 

3  Q.  B.  (Ad.  &  E.  N.  s.)493;  Reynolds  latter  case  it  was  held  that  a  slave  es- 

V.  McMullen,  55  Mich.  568,  575.  caped    from    another    State,    not    being 

1  Denny  v.  Faulkner,  22  Kans.  89,  96,  property  in  Massachusetts,  could  not  be 
citing  several  cases  above  referred  to.  administered  upon  there ;  but  that  if  the 
See  cases  under  §§  160,  161 ;  and  Klein  owner's  title  had  vested  in  the  adminis- 
V.  French,  57  Miss.  662,  668  ;  McNamara  trator  in  the  State  of  the  owner's  domicil, 
V.  McNamara,  62  Ga.  200;  Luce  v.  Rail-  the  latter  or  his  agent  might,  under  the 
road,  63  N.  H.  588.  law  of  Congress,  seize  and  remove  the 

2  Story,  Confl.  L.  §516;  ante,  §159;  slave  without  administration  in  Massa- 
Collins  r.  Bankhead,  1   Strobh.  25.    The  chusetts. 

same   principle  holds  good  respecting  a  *  Indeed,  a  new  administrator  appoint- 

liability,  which  follows  the  person  of  the  ed  in  the  State  of  the  new  forum,   not 

debtor;    hence   a   legacy   charged   upon  being  privy  to  the  judgment,  could  not 

real    estate    devised,    may    be    enforced  maintain  such  action  :  Talmage  f.  Chapel, 

against  the  devisee  (although  he  be  also  16  Mass.  71.      See  Cherry  v.  Spight,  28 

executor),  if  he  accepted  the   devise,  in  Te.x.  503;  Biddle  «.  Wilkins,  1  Pet.  686; 

any  foreign   State  to  which  he  may  re-  Barton  v.  Higgins,  41  Md.  539;  Hall  v. 

move :    Brown    v.   Knapp,  79  N.  Y.  136,  Harrison,  21   Mo.  227 ;  Rucks  v.  Taylor, 

143.  49  Miss.  552,  560;  Lewis  u.  Adams,  70 

3  Kilpatrick   v.  Bush,  23  Miss.   199  ;  Cal.  403. 

Purple  V.  Whithed,  49   Vt.  187  ;    Craw-  &  Lawrence  v.  Lawrence,  3  Barb.  Ch. 

ford  V.  Graves,  15  La.  An.  243;  Wingate  71;  Barrett  v.  Barrett,  8  Me.  346;  Trot- 

V.   Wheat,  6  La.   An.   238;    Beckham  v.  terr.  White,  10  Sm   &  M.  607  ;  Mo  wry  e-. 

Wittkowski,   64   N.    C    464;    Common-  Adams,  14  Mass.  327,  .329;   Williams  y. 

wealth   V.  Griffith,   2  Pick.   11.     In   the  Moore,  9  Pick.  432,  434. 


§  162  EXTRA-TERRITORIAL   VALIDITY   OF   TITLE.  367 

fatal  objection  in  such  cases  that  the  plaintiff  described  himself  as 
executor  or  administrator,  this  being  a  profjer  descriptio  personce. 
So  an  executor  may  maintain  an  action  for  lands  devised  to  him 
in  another  State,  without  qualifying  in  such  State  as  executor, 
because  in  such  case  he  may  sue  as  devisee,^  and  the  executor  or 
administrator  holding  a  note  indorsed  in  blank  or  payable  to 
bearer  may  sue  thereon,  as  indorsee  or  owner  ;2  and  a  fortiori  as 
payee,  where  the  note  is  given  or  payable  to  him  in  person,  for  in 
such  case  the  full  legal  title  is  in  the  personal  representative,  and 
the  addition  of  his  official  capacity  mere  description  of  the  per- 
son.^ So  an  administrator,  to  whom  a  patent  was  reissued  on  an 
invention  of  his  intestate,  may  maintain  an  action  for  the  infringe- 
ment thereof  in  a  State  in  which  he  has  obtained  no  letters, 
because  the  legal  title  to  such  patent  is  in  the  administrator  as 
trustee.^  For  the  same  reason,  the  assignee  of  a  chose  in  action 
assigned  by  a  foreign  executor  or  administrator  may  maintain  an 
action  on  the  chose  transferred,  although  the  assignor  could  not 
bring  such  suit  himself,^  on  the  ground  that  the  disability  of  the 
foreign  executor  or  administrator  to  sue  does  not  attach  to  the 
subject  of  the  action,  but  to  the  person  of  the  plaintiff.     But  this 

1  Lewis  I'.  McFarland,9  Cr.  151.    But  in  the  matter  in  controversy:   Bunlyne 

this  principle  would  not  hold  gooil  in  the  v.  Mackey,  7  Mo.  374. 

case   of  a    legatee   or   heir   of   personal  *  Goodyearr.  Hullihen,  3  Fisher's  Pat. 

property,    who    must     derive     his    title  Cas.    251,   citing    Woodworth   v.   Hall,   1 

through    the   executor  or  administrator,  Woodb.  &  Min.   248,  254,  and  Smith  v. 

and  he  derives  his  authority  as  such  from  Mercer,  3  Pa.  L.  J.  529,  531. 

the  lex  loci  rei  sitce  :   Partnership  Estate  ^  Campbell   v.  Brown,    64  Iowa,  425, 

of  Ames  &  Co.,  52  Mo.  290.  citing  authorities  pro  and  cm;  Harper  v. 

■^  Barrett    iK    Barrett,   supra  ;    Robin-  Butler,  2  Pet.  239  ;  Peterson  v.  Chemical 

son  V.  Crandall,  9  Wend.  425  ;   Klein   v.  Bank,  32  N.  Y.  21  ;  Smith  v.  Tiffany,  16 

French,   57    Miss.    602,    071  ;    Knapp   v.  Hun,  552  ;  Leake  v.  Gilchrist,  2  Dev.  L. 

Lee,  42  Mich.  41.  73  ;  Maekay  r.  Church,  15  R.  I.  121 ;  Equi- 

8  Rector  v.  Langham,  1  Mo.  568  ;  La-  table  Life  Assur.  r.  Vogel,  76  Ala.  441, 
compte  V.  Seurgent,  7  Mo.  351;  Smith  v.  447.  So  it  was  held  in  Missouri,  that  an 
Monks,  55  Mo.  106.  So  where  an  admin-  executrix,  who  was  also  residuary  legatee, 
istratri.x  insured  the  intestate's  propert}',  having  fully  administered  in  Kentucky, 
situate  in  the  State  of  tiie  domicil,  in  a  may  bring  an  action  in  her  own  right 
company  doing  business  in  another  State,  against  a  debtor  of  the  testator  resident 
in  which  administration  is  also  had,  the  of  Missouri  :  Morton  v.  Hatch,  54  Mo. 
money  due  on  the  loss  of  the  property  408.  And  the  assignee  of  stock  by  a  for- 
was  held  payable  to  the  administratrix  eign  executor  may  compel  the  transfer 
at  the  place  of  domicil :  Abbott  l:  Miller,  tliercof  in  the  courts  of  the  State  where 
10  Mo.  141.  But  when  he  sues  in  his  the  corporation  does  business  :  Middle- 
representative  capacity,  alleging  title  in  brook  v.  Merchants'  Bank,  3  Abb.  App. 
his  testator  or  intestate,  he  cannot  re-  Dec.  295,  affirming  same  case  in  41  Barb, 
cover  by  virtue  of  his  individual  interest  481  ;  18  Abb.  Pr.  109  ;  27  How.  Pr.  474; 


868  DOMICILIAR   AND   ANCILLARY   JURISDICTION.  §  163 

is  true  only  in  cases  where  the  title  to  the  chose  has  fully  at- 
tached, and  may  be  asserted  without  trenching  upon  the  authority 
of  the  forum  rei  sitce ;  where,  for  instance,  the  property  of  an 
executor  or  administrator  is  wrongfully  removed  into  another 
State,^  or  where  sucli  property  is  removed  after  due  administra- 
tion thereon.  In  such  case  the  title  of  the  owner  is  not  affected 
by  any  question  of  administration,  and  is  as  full  as  tliat  of  any 
owner  sui  juris.  In  general,  however,  simple  contract  debts 
are  bona  notahilia  in  the  State  where  the  debtor  resides,  and 
neither  an  administrator  appointed  in  a  foreign  State,  nor  the 
assignee  of  such,  can  control  or  release  them.^  So  the  balance 
remitted  by  a  foreign  executor  to  his  agent  in  another  State,  with 
directions  to  pay  it  to  a  residuary  legatee,  cannot  be  claimed  by  an 
administrator  appointed  in  such  State.^ 

§  163.    Statutory  Authority  of  Foreign  Executors  and  Administra- 
tors. —  Statutory  provisions  of  many  of  tlie  States  enable  foreign 
executors  and  administrators,  under  such  conditions 

Authority  ,  "    .      .  ,        .  ,     .  .  , 

conferred  by  and  restrictions  as  may  be  imposed,  to  assign,  trans- 
fer, collect,  and  sue  for  the  property  of  their  testators 
and  intestates  found  within  the  jurisdiction  of  such  States.*  It 
follows  from  this  authority  of  foreign  executors  and  administra- 
tors, that  the  statute  of  limitation  runs  against  them  just  as 
though  they  had  been  appointed  in  such  States.^     And  where  the 

Luce  V.  Railroad,  G3  N.  H.  588;  Graham  son,  2  N.  H.  291;   Moore  v.  Jordan,  36 

V.  Oviatt,  58  Cal.  428.  Kans.  271,  274. 

1  Moore  v.  Fields,  42  Pa.  St.  467,  472.  ^  Because  it  was  money  had  and  re- 

2  Dial  V.  Gary,  14  S.  C  573  ;  Morton  ceived  by  the  agent  to  the  use  of  the 
V.  Hatcli,  supra,  in  wliidi  the  distinction  residuary  legatee,  who  was  entitled  to 
between  the  condition  of  the  title  before  recover  tiie  same  :  Wlieelock  v.  Pierce, 
and  after  completion  of  the  administra-  6  Cush.  288. 

tion  is  empliasized ;  Stearns  v.  Barnham,  *  Eells  v.  Holder,  2  McCrary,  622  ; 
5  Me.  261  ;  McCarty  v.  Hall,  13  Mo.  480 ;  Bell  v.  Nicliols.  .^.8  Ala.  678 ;  Cloud  v. 
Partner.sliip  Estate  of  Henry  Ames  &  Co.,  Golightly,  5  Ala.  654;  Glassell  v.  Wil- 
52  Mo.  290.  See  also  Barnes  r.  Brashear,  son,  4  Wash.  59;  Newton  v.  Cocke,  10 
2  B.  Mon.  380,  where  it  is  held  that  the  Ark.  169 ;  South  Western  Railroad  v. 
assignment  of  a  note  by  the  executor  of  Paulk,  24  Ga.  356  ;  Turner  i'.  Linam,  55 
a  deceased  testator  properly  appointed  Ga.  253;  Kansas  Pacific  Railroad  y.  Cut- 
authorizes  the  assignee  to  bring  suit  upon  ter,  16  Kans.  568;  Sheldon  v.  Rice,  30 
it  in  any  other  State,  and  that  tiie  admin-  Mich.  296 ;  Price  v.  Morris,  5  McLean,  4  ; 
istrator  of  the  estate  in  the  place  of  the  Deringer  y.  Deringer,  5  Houst.  416;  such 
domicil,  who  obtained  possession  of  a  provisions  do  not  exclude  the  grant  of  let- 
bond  which  was  in  possession  of  the  in-  ters  by  the  local  courts,  but  are  cnmula- 
testate  at  the  time  of  his  death  in  anotlier  tive  :  Epping  v.  Robinson,  21  Fla.  36,  51. 
State,  was  authorized  to  collect  such  ^  Manly  v.  Turnipseed,  37  Ala.  522; 
bond  :  pp.  883  et  seg. ;  Tliompson  v.  Wil-  Bell  v.  Nichols,  supra. 


§  163  AUTHORITY   OF   FOREIGN   EXECUTORS.  369 

statute  authorizes  them  to  sue  and  be  sued,  in  like  manner  as  a 
non-resident  may  be  sued,^  an  attachment  against  such  will  divest 
them  of  all  interest  in  the  property  attached.^  In  Pennsylvania  a 
distinction  formerly  existed  between  executors  appointed  in  a  sister 
State  and  those  of  foreign  countries,  and  it  was  held  that  this  law 
was  intended  to  prevent  the  withdrawal  from  the  jurisdiction  of 
Pennsylvania  of  the  estates  of  non-residents,  to  the  prejudice  of 
those  interested  in  the  distribution,  and  to  apply  to  administrators 
as  well  as  executors  •,^  but  now  any  foreign  executor  may  transfer 
stock  of  a  company  in  Pennsylvania."*  In  some  of  the  States  the 
foreign  executor  or  administrator  is  permitted  to  act,  but  must 
first  qualify  according  to  the  laws  of  such  State,^  or  file  his  letters 
testamentary  or  of  administration  in  the  county  where  he  brings 
suit.^  Where  a  foreign  executor  or  administrator  is  entitled  to 
bring  suit  on  condition  of  obtaining  new  letters,  as  in  Nebraska, 
he  stands  in  the  same  relation  to  the  estate  which  an  executor 
sustains  at  common  law  before  probate  of  the  will ;  he  mav  com- 
mence an  action  before  obtaining  letters,  and  take  judgment,  if  he 
show  by  subsequent  averment  that  he  was  duly  qualified.''  So  the 
authority  of  a  foreign  executrix  to  defend  a  suit  in  Kentucky  is 
not  extinguished  by  her  marriage ;  the  statute  of  Kentucky  has 
no  bearing  upon  the  authority  of  a  non-resident  representative, 
which  is  governed  by  the  foreign  law.^    A  foreign  executor  selling 

1  As  in  Kansas,  Gen.  St.  ch.  37,  §203.  Nicole  v.  Mnmford,  Kirby,  270;  Hobart 

•^  Cady  ('.  Bard,  21  Kans.  667,  668.  v.   Turnpike   Company,    15   Conn.    145  ; 

3  Alfonso's  Appeal,  70  Pa.  St.  347.  Alisiip  v.   Allsup,   10  Yerg.   283;    Curie 

*  Williams  v.  Pennsylvania  Railroad,  v.  Moor,  1  Dana,  445;  Winter  v.   Win- 

9    Phil.   298,  referring   to   the  statute  of  ter,    Walker  (Miss.),    211;    Vermilya   v. 

1871,  Pamph.  L.  44,  and  holding  that  it  Beatty,   6  Barb.  429.      These  condhions 

is  not  incumbent  upon  tiie  company  to  are  in  effect  a  requirement  to  obtain  new 

ascertain  whether  the  will  authorizes  such  letters. 

transfer,  but  tiie  power  in  the  executor  ^  Mansfield    v.    Turpin,   32   Ga.    260  ; 

will  be  presumed.     The  earlier  statutes  Navlor  v.  Moody,  2  Blackf.  247.     And  in 

on   this  subject  were  regarded  with  dis-  Illinois  it  is  held  that,   where  the  tran 

trust   and   apprehension   by    the  courts,  script  of  the  letters  so  filed  shows  tlmt 

"  The   autliority   of    an    administrator,"  they  were  granted  in  a  foreign  State  b\ 

says  Gibson,  C.  J.,  of  the  Supreme  Court  the  clerk,  this  will  be  deemed  a  ministe- 

of  Pennsylvania,  "  under  letters  granted  rial  act,  and  collateral  inquiry   mav   bo 

in  a  sister  State,  to  meddle  with  the  as-  made  whether  the  conditions  necessary 

sets  here,  is  an  anomaly  produced  hy  an  tn  ijive  jurisdiction  existed  :  Illinois  Cen- 

une.xanipled  spirit  of  comity  in  the  courts  tral  Railroad  v.  Cragin,  71  111.  177.     And 

of  this  State,  which  will  probably  be  at-  in   Iowa  the  foreign  e.xecutor  must  also 

tended,  in   this  respect,  with  perplexity  give  bond  before  he  can  sue:  Karrick  v. 

and   confusion  "  :    Brodie  v.  Brickley,  2  Pratt,  4  Greene  (Iowa),  144. 
Kawle,  431,  437.  '  Swatzel  r.  Arnr.ld.  1  Woolw.  383. 

&  Perkins  v.  Williams,  2   Root,   462  ;  »  Moss  v.  Rowland,  3  Bush,  505. 

VOL.  I.  —  24 


370  DOMICILIAR    AND    ANCILLARY  JURISDICTION.  §  164 

land  in  Indiana  is  governed  by  the  same  rules,  terms,  and  condi- 
tions as  a  domestic  executor,  except  that  he  is  not  liable  to  give 
bond,  if  he  have  given  a  sufficient  bond  in  the  State  in  which  he 
received  his  appointment.^  In  Florida  foreign  executors  and  ad- 
ministrators are  authorized  by  the  statute  to  bring  suits,  but  not 
to  defend  them.^  Letters  granted  in  New  York  have  been  held 
to  enable  a  suit  to  be  brought  in  the  District  of  Columbia,-^  and  in 
Minnesota  a  foreign  administrator  may  be  admitted  to  defend  a 
suit  pending  against  the  decedent  at  his  death.*  Where  a  testator 
in  Ireland  named  a  person  in  America  as  trustee,  with  power  and 
discretion  to  collect  and  transmit  his  estate  in  America  to  his  ex- 
ecutors in  Ireland,  the  person  so  named  was  held  to  be  a  limited 
executor,  and  bound  to  execute  the  trust  in  the  mode  prescribed 
in  the  will.^ 

§  164.  Liabilities  of  Foreign  Administrators.  —  The  principle 
that  executors  and  administrators  are  not  liable  to  actions  as 
such  in  States  where  they  have  obtained  no  letters  is  not  per- 
mitted to  protect  them  against  the  consequences  of  their  own 
Equity  will  wroug  or  default.  Thus,  where  an  executor  or  ad- 
ag'ainst  an  ad-  miuistrator  rcmovcs  the  property  of  the  estate  in  his 
bringi^ng  un-      charge,  without  having  completed  the  administration, 

administered  f^Q  another  State,  and  fails  to  obtain  new  letters  of  ad- 
property  into  ' 

a  State  with-      ministration  there,  a  court  of  equity  will  grant  relief 

out  obtaining  j       ./  o 

letters.  to  any  person   whose  interest  is  thereby  jeoparded, 

on  the  ground  that,  where  a  trust  fund  is  in  danger  of  being 
wasted  or  misapplied,  the  court  of  chancery,  on  the  applica- 
tion of  those  interested,  will  interfere  to  protect  the  fund  from 
loss.^  The  exercise  of  this  authority  is  in  no  way  inconsistent 
with  the  general  principle  announced  as  governing  the  powers 
and  liabilities  of  executors  and  administrators,  who,  as  such, 
derive  their  powers  from,  and  are  amenable  only  to,  the  forum  of 
the  State  under  whose  laws  they  hold  their  office.  They  are  in 
such  proceeding  treated,  not  in  their  official  capacity,  which  is  co- 
extensive onlj'^  with  the  State  in  which  they  received  their  appoint- 
ment, but  as  persons  who,  by  withdrawing  themselves  from  the 

1  Rapp  V.  Matthias,  35  Ind.  .332.  *  Brown  v.  Brown,  35  Minn.  191. 

2  Gordon  v.  Clark,  10  Fla.  179,  196  ;  ^  Hunter  v.  Bryson,  5  G.  &  J.  483. 
Sloan  V.  Sloan,  21  Fla.  589.  o  Calhoun  v.  King,  5  Ala.   528,  525; 

3  Blydenburgh  v.  Lowry,  4  Or.  C.  C.  Beeler  v.  Dunn,  3  Head,  87,  90;  Dillard 
368 ;    if  certified  according  to  2  St.  at  v.  Harris,  2  Tenn.  Ch.  196,  206. 

Large,  755. 


§  164  LIABILITIES    OF    FOREIGN    ADMINISTRATORS.  371 

jurisdiction  of  the  court  having  power  over  them,  are  unlavvfiilly 
in  possession  of  the  property  which  is  to  be  protected,  or  adjudged 
to  its  lawful  owner.  "  This  is  not  a  suit  against  the  administra- 
tor for  a  debt  due  from  the  estate,  but  it  is  an  assertion  of  title  to 
the  property  itself,  which,  being  found  in  this  State,  will  give  the 
court  jurisdiction."  1  So  an  executor  may  be  compelled  by  a  court 
of  equity,  in  a  State  to  which  he  may  have  removed,  to  disclose 
with  what  funds  he  has  purchased  property,  the  character  of  the 
funds,  and  whether  he  holds  the  property  as  trustee,  and  for  what 
uses  and  trusts.^  In  Connecticut  it  is  held  that  an  executor 
bringing  unadministered  assets  of  his  testator's  estate  into  a  for- 
eign State  is  there  liable  to  creditors  as  executor  de  jure?  And 
executors  who  have  been  made  parties  to  a  suit  in  a  foreign  State 
at  their  own  request  will  not  be  heard  to  deny,  in  a  subsequent 
suit  on  such  judgment  in  the  State  of  the  domicil,  the  jurisdiction 
of  such  foreign  court.*  And  wdiere  an  executor  obtains  letters  of 
administration  in  another  State  also,  he  is  liable  there  for  assets 
obtained  in  the  foreign  State  before  issue  of  letters  to  him.^ 

In  Georgia,  an  administrator,  appointed  in  another  State,  hav- 
ing converted  the  assets  of  the  estate  and  removed  to  Georgia, 
was  not  only  held  personally  liable  to  the  heirs,  but  also  the 
sureties  on  his  administration  bond,  who  had  likewise  removed  to 
Georgia.^ 

1  Ormond,    J.,   in    Calhoun    v.   King,  this  case  it  is  held  that  the  executor,  as 

supra.     To    the  same  effect,  Williamson  such,  cannot  be  called  to  account  before 

r.  Branch    Bank,  7  Ala.  906;   Julian  v.  a  foreign  court. 

Reynolds,    8    Ala.    680  ;    Montalvan    v.  3  Marcy  v.  Marcy,  32  Coim.  308. 

Clover,  32  Barb.  190 ;  Patton  v.  Overton,  *  Upon   the  ground  of   estoppel,  and 

8  Humph.   192;    Tunstall  v.  Pollard,  11  also  on  the  principle  that  where  one  sues 

Leigh,  1 ;  Colbert  v.  Daniel,  32  Ala.  314  ;  as  executor,  or,   being  sued,  answers   as 

McNamara  v.  Dwyer,  7  Pai.  239;  Allsup  such,  lie  is  liable  as  executor  ch  son  tort : 

(.'.  Allsup,  10  Yerg.  283 ;  Bryan  e\  McGee,  Davis  v.   Connelly,  4   B.  Mon.    136,   139 

2  Wash.  C.  C.  337  ;   Powell  v.  Stratton,  et  seq. 

11  Grat.   792;    Manion  v.  Titsworth,  18  ^  Parsons  i>.  Lyman,  4  Bradf.  268;  20 

B    Mon.  582,  597,  approved  in  Baker  v.  N.  Y.  103, 108.    But  where  a  debtor  makes 

SmitJi,  3  Met.  (Ky.)  264,  holding  tiiat  the  voluntary  payment  to  a  foreign  executor, 

accountability  of  the  administrator  must  who   accounts   therefor  in   sucti    foreign 

be   determined  by  the  law  of  the  State  State,  and  subsequently  takes  out  letters 

where  he  qualified;  Spraddling ;'.  Pipkin,  in  the  debtor's   State,  the  latter  cannot 

15  Mo.  118,  holding  that  in  such  case  the  then,   as  a  creditor,  claim  to  have  him 

remedy  is  not  detinue  by  an  administrator  surcharged  in  his  State  with  the  debt  so 

de  bonis  nnn  appointed  here,  but  by  bill  in  paid  :  Gray's  Appeal,  116  Pa.  St.  256. 

equity  ;  Whittaker  v.  Whittaker,  10  Lea,  ^  Johnson  v.  Jackson,  56  Ga.  326,  328. 

1)3,  97.  Warner,  C.  J.,  in  delivering  the  opinion, 

•^  Clopton  V.  Booker,  27  Ark.  482.     In  puts  this  doctrine  on  the  ground  that  the 


872  DOMICILIAR    AND    ANCILLARY   JURISDICTION.  §  165 

It  may  be  stated,  however,  as  a  general  proposition^  that  the 
liability  of  an  administrator  for  property  fraudulently,  or  without 
having  been  fully  administered,  brought  from  the  State  in  which 
he  received  his  appointment  to  another  State,  is  to  the  creditors 
and  distributees  alone,  and  does  not  authorize  the  grant  of  letters 
in  the  latter  State. ^ 

§  165.  Probate  Jurisdiction  afifected  by  Change  of  Government.  — 
A  question  of  some  interest  in  connection  with  the  status  of  for- 
Vaiidityof  ©ign  cxccutors  and  administrators  arose  out  of  the 
byTstate'in  Gxcrcise  of  probatc  jurisdiction  by  the  courts  under 
rebellion.  ^lie  governments  existing  in  some  of  the  States  dur- 

ing the  late  rebellion,  and  the  subsequent  rehabilitation  of  the 
government  of  the  United  States.  The  probate  of  wills  and 
the  appointment  of  executors  and  administrators  by  probate 
courts  holding  authority  under  and  commissions  from  the  gov- 
ernment of  the  State  of  Alabama  while  a  member  of  the  Confed- 
eration, were  after  the  war,  in  the  State  of  Alabama,  held  to  be 
the  acts  of  a  foreign  jurisdiction.  "  It  is  true,"  says  Peck,  C.  J., 
of  the  Supreme  Court,  delivering  the  opinion  in  Bibb  v.  Avery, 
"  there  seems  to  be  an  apparent  incongruity  in  this  view  of  tlie 
case,  arising  from  the  fact  that  the  rebel  State  government  had 
the  same  name,  and  was  in  possession  of  the  same  geographical 
territory,  as  the  legitimate  government  of  the  State  of  Alabama 
before  and  since  the  rebellion,  and  the  people  were  the  same 
people  ;  but  this  apparent  incongruity  disappears  when  we  look  to 
principles  and  not  to  names.  For  we  know  that  the  rebel  State 
of  Alabama,  not  rightfully,  but  in  fact,  was  in  all  its  essentials, 
its  sovereignty,  dominion,  and  government,  as  utterly  foreign  to 
the  United  States,  as  the  government  of  Canada  or  of  San  Do- 
mingo; consequently,  the  judgments  of  its  courts  and  judicial  acts 
can  be  treated  as  having  no  greater  legal  effect  than  the  judg- 
ments and  judicial  acts  of  a  recognized  foreign  government."  ^ 

sovereignty  and  jurisdiction  of  the  State  same  manner  as  if  they  were  sued  in  tlie 

extend  to  all  persons  while  within  its  lim-  courts  of  that  State  or  country.     "  And 

its,  whether  as  citizens,  denizens,  or  tern-  that,"  he  says,  "  is  the  comity  of  states  as 

porary    sojourners,    including    executors  recognized  by  the  .  .  .  Code."    It  is  to  be 

and  administrators  as  well  as  other  per-  noticed,  however,  that  the   facts  recited 

sons,  no  exception  being  made  in  favor  in  the  opinion  bring  the  case  fully  within 

of  sureties  on  their  bonds  ;  the  nature  and  the  general  rule  as  stated  in  the  text, 
extent  of  their  liability  being  determined  i  McCabe  v.  Lewis,  76  Mo.  296,  304. 

by  the  laws  of  the  country  or  State  from  2  45  ^ja.  691,  693  et  srq.    It  was  accord- 

which  they  derive  their  authority,  in  the  ingly  held  in  this  case,  that  executors 


§  166       PROCEDUnE  GOVERNED  BY  THE  FORUM.        373 

In  Arkansas  it  was  held  that  letters  of  administration  issued  by 
the  clerk  of  the  probate  court,  holding  a  commission  from  the 
Governor  of  Arkansas  under  the  Confederate  Constitution  of  1861, 
were  void,  and  conferred  no  authority  in  1867,  because  the  clerk 
was  not,  at  the  time  of  granting  the  letters,  in  March,  1864,  an 
officer  of  the  government  of  the  State  of  Arkansas.^  But  an 
action  commenced  by  an  executor  appointed  during  the  war  may 
be  continued  by  such  executor  in  his  own  name  under  authority 
of  new  letters  granted  after  the  war  by  the  proper  probate  court 
of  the  existing  government.^ 

A  similar  question  was  presented  in  consequence  of  the  cession 
of  a  part  of  their  territories  by  the  States  of  Virginia  and  Mary- 
land to  the  government  of  the  United  States  to  form  the  District 
of  Columbia,  which  led  to  the  decision  that  letters  of  administra- 
tion granted  in  Maryland  before  the  cession  of  the  territory  have 
no  validity  in  the  district  ceded  after  the  separation,  and  that  the 
administrator  must  obtain  new  letters  there.^  But  an  adminis- 
trator who  had  been  appointed  in  Virginia  before  the  separation 
could  not,  in  a  suit  against  him  in  the  District  of  Columbia  after 
the  separation,  sustain  the  plea  of  "  never  administrator."  *  And 
in  Kentucky  it  was  held  that  the  probate  of  a  will  in  Virginia 
before  the  separation  of  Kentucky  from  its  territory  was  not  a 
foreign  probate,  but  that  the  will  so  proved  was  admissible  in  evi- 
dence as  a  will  proved  in  Kentucky  after  the  separation.^ 

§  166.  Procedure  governed  by  the  Law  of  the  Forum. — Although 
the  law  of  the  domicil  of  the  decedent  governs  the  devolution  of 
personal  property  to  heirs  and  legatees,  yet  it  follows  jj,,,^^  „f  ^^^^ 
from  the  exclusive  authority  of  each  nation  over  the  ministration, 

•^  priority  of 

property  and  persons  within  its  iurisdiction,  that  the  debts,  and 

^      ^       -  ^  ■'  '  method  of 


mode  of  administration,  including  the  method  of  prov-  provins  them, 
ing  debts,  their  right  to  priority  of  payment,  and  the  by  theVaw  of 
marshalling  of  assets  for  this  purpose,  is  governed  ^^e  forum. 


lioUling  letters  testamentary  issuetl  "by  cumstances  of  the  case,  the  new  letters  so 

a  probate  court  of  the  rcbul  State  govern-  issued  must  be  regarded,  not  as  ancillary, 

inent  of  Alabama  "  before  the  judge  of  but  as  original. 

said  court  had  taken  the  oath  of  amnesty  ^  Page  v.  Cook,  26  Ark.  122. 

and  of  office  required  by  the  Governor's  -  Gilmer  v.  Purgason,  50  Ala.  370. 

proclamation  of  July  20,  1805,  were  re-  ^  Fen  wick  i^  Sears,  1  Cranch,  259. 

quired  to  obtain  new  letters,  and  give  new  *  Courtney    v.   Hunter,    1    Cr.    C.   C. 

bonds    and   security,   before   they   could  265. 

maintain  an  action  in  the  courts  of  that  ^  Morgan  i'.  Gaines,  3  A.   K.   Marsh. 

State  ;   but  that,  under  the  peculiar  cir-  613;  Gray  v.  Patton,  2  B.  Monr.  12. 


374 


DOMICILIAR   AND   ANCILLARY   JURISDICTION. 


§166 


altogether  by  the  law  of  the  country  in  which  the  executor  or 
administrator  acts,  entirely  independent  of  that  in  the  domicil  of 
the  decedent,  or  in  any  other  State. ^  This  principle  is  recognized 
in  the  Federal  as  well  as  in  the  State  courts.  Thus,  a  creditor 
obtaining  a  judgment  in  a  District  Court  of  the  United  States  was 
held  not  entitled  to  an  execution  thereon  against  the  administra- 
tor of  an  intestate's  estate  declared  insolvent  by  the  probate  court, 
although  the  judgment  had  been  obtained  before  the  estate  was 
declared  insolvent,  on  the  ground  that  the  jurisdiction  of  the 
probate  court  had  attached  to  the  assets.^  That  an  executor  or 
administrator  is  not  liable  in  the  State  where  he  received  his 
appointment  for  assets  received  in  another  State,  whether  he 
obtained  additional  letters  there  or  not,  has  already  been  shown.^ 
The  cases  holding  a  contrary  doctrine,^  in  so  far  as  they  are  not 
based  upon  the  principle  that  the  assets  were  wrongfully  removed 
from  the  State  or  country  having  jurisdiction  for  the  purpose  or 
with  the  effect  of  defeating  such  jurisdiction,  seem  to  be  incon- 
sistent with  the  general  doctrine  on  this  subject,  and  are  said  by 
Judge  Story  to  be  very  difficult  to  be  supported.^ 


1  Story,  Confl.  L.  §§  524,  525 ;  Smith 
V.  Union  Bank  of  Georgetown,  5  Pet.  518, 
520 :  "  Every  sovereign  has  his  own  code 
of  administration,  varying  to  infinity  as 
to  the  order  of  paying  debts,  and  almost 
without  an  exception  asserting  the  riglit 
to  be  himself  first  paid  out  of  tiie  assets. 
And  tlie  obligation  in  the  administrator 
to  conform  to  such  laws  is  very  gener- 
ally enforced,  not  only  by  a  bond,  but  by 
an  oath,  both  of  whicli  must  rest  for  their 
efficiency  on  tlie  laws  of  the  State  which 
requires  them."  Kennedy  v.  Kennedy, 
8  Ala.  391 ;  McGehee  v.  Polk,  24  Ga.  406 ; 
Hooker  v.  Olmstead,  6  Pick.  481 ;  St.  Jurjo 
J'.  Dunscomb,  2  Bradf.  105 ;  Isham  v. 
Gibbons,  1  Bradf.  69  ;  Willing  v.  Perot, 
5  Rawie,  264;  Goodall  v.  Marshall,  11 
N.  H.  88;  Dixon  v.  Ramsay,  3  Or.  319; 
Trecothick  v.  Austin,  4  Mas.  16. 

-  "  They  are  in  gremio  legis,"  says 
Grier,  J.  "  But  we  wish  it  to  be  under- 
stood that  we  do  not  express  any  o]iinion 
as  to  the  right  of  State  legislation  to 
compel  foreign  creditors  in  all  cases  to 
seek  their  remedy  against  the  estates  of 
decedents  m  the  State  courts  alone,  to 
tlie  exclusion  of  the  jurisdiction  of  the 


courts  of  the  United  States  "  :  Williams 
V.  Benedict,  8  How.  107,  112.  In  later 
cases,  it  was  held  that  a  foreign  creditor 
may  establish  his  debt  in  the  courts  of  the 
United  States  against  the  representatives 
of  a  decedent,  notwithstanding  tlie  local 
laws  relative  to  the  administration  and 
settlement  of  insolvent  estates,  and  that 
the  court  will  interpose  to  arrest  the  dis- 
tribution of  a))i/  surplus  among  the  heirs, 
reserving,  however,  the  question  whether 
or  what  steps  may  be  taken  to  secure 
equality  of  such  creditors  in  the  distribu- 
tion of  the  assets  independently  of  the 
administration  in  the  probate  courts  : 
Green  v.  Creighton,  23  How.  (U.  S.)  90, 
107  et  seq. :  Union  Bank  of  Tennessee  v. 
Jolly,  18  How.  503. 

3  A)itp,  §  160,  and  authorities. 

4  Swearingen  v.  Pendleton,  4  S.  &  R. 
889,  392,  and  Evans  v.  Tatem,  9  S.  &  R. 
252,  259,  both  overruled  in  Magraw  v. 
Irwin,  87  Pa.  St.  139,  142;  Bryan  v. 
McGee,  2  Wash.  C.  C.  337 ;  Campbell  v. 
Tousey,  7  Cow.  64. 

s  Story,  Confl.  L.  §  514  a,  citing  with 
approval  Fay  v.  Haven,  3  Met.  (Mass.) 
109 ;  Selectmen  v.  Boylston,  2  Mass.  384 ; 


1G7 


PAYMENT   OF   DEBTS   TO    NON-RESIDENTS. 


375 


§  167.    Payment  of  Debts   and   Distribution  to   Non-residents.  — 
From  these  principles  it  results  that  the  administration  of  the 
assets  of  a  deceased  person  is  conducted  according  to  j)^.^,,^  ^^^^^^ 
the  laws  of  the  State  in  which  they  may  be  found,  and  J^-'^,J/,''".f J',^j 
apnlied  first  to  the  payment  of  the  expenses  of  admin-  expenses  ot 

'  '  '     "^  .  administration 

istration,^  and  such  debts  as  may  be  proved  against  are  lir.^t  paid 

-,.,  .-,.  .,  1-fji  1        out  (if  tlie  funds 

the  estate  by  creditors  residing  there ;  and  it  there  be 


legatees  or  heirs  there  also,  their  claims  will  be  deter- 


in  the  liands  of 

the  adniinistra- 

_  tor  in  the  State 

mined  according  to  the  law  of  the  decedent's  domicil,  of  tiie  f«rum. 
and  distributed  to  them.     The  residue  may  then  be  Residue  is  then 
remitted  from  the  ancillary  to  the  domiciliary  execu-  !i'^,',li"i£r^  '"^ 
tor  or  administrator.^     But  it  is  not  obligatory  upon  administrator, 
courts  to  transfer  the  assets  to  the  domicil  for  distribution  ;  in 
their  judicial  discretion,  to  be  guided  by  the  circum-  or  distributed 
stances  of   each   particular  case,  they  may  be  thus  l*^;^'thout  such 
remitted,^  or  ordered  to  be  distributed  by  the  ancil-  transmission. 
lary  administrator  to  the  parties  in  interest  seeking  their  remedy 
there.'^ 


Goodwin  v.  Jones,  3  Mass.  614 ;  Davis  v. 
Estey,  8  Pick.  475  ;  Dawes  v.  Head,  3 
Pick.  128  ;  Doolittle  v.  Lewis,  7  Jolin.  Cli. 
45;  McRae  v.  McRae,  11  La.  571;  and 
quoting  largely  from  the  opinions  in  2  and 
3  Mass.  and  7  John.,  su/na. 

1  In  Georgia  it  is  held  that  the  j'ear's 
support  of  the  widow  of  an  intestate  is 
by  statute  declared  to  be  a  part  of  the 
necessary  expenses  of  administration,  but 
that  tlie  amount  thereof  is  to  be  ascer- 
tained by  the  law  of  the  domicil  of  the 
intestate  at  the  time  of  his  death,  and  not 
by  tlie  law  of  the  forum  before  which  the 
administration  is  pending  :  Mitchell  v. 
Word,  64  Ga.  208,  218.  A  dissenting 
opinion  by  Jackson,  J.,  held  that  the  ex- 
penses of  administration  are  regulated  by 
the  law  of  the  forum  :  p.  219. 

2  Harvey  v.  Richards,  1  Mas.  381,  413; 
Spraddling  v.  Pipkin,  15  Mo.  118;  Parker, 
C.  J.,  in  Dawes  v.  Head,  3  Pick.  128,  144  ; 
Dawes  v.  Boylston,  9  Mass.  337  ;  Morde- 
eai  V.  Boylan,  6  Jones  Eq.  365,  holding 
tliat  it  was  the  duty  of  the  ancillary  ex- 
ecutor to  distribute  the  legacies  to  the 
resident  legatees  pro  rata,  if  there  is  not 
a  sufficiency  of  assets  in  his  hands  to  pay 
them  in  full ;  Richards  r.  Dutch,  8  Mass. 
506;  Fay  v.  Haven,  3  Met.  (Mass.)  109; 


Stevens  v.  Gaylord,  11  Mass.  256 ;  Chil- 
dress V.  Bennett,  10  Ala.  751  ;  Perkins  v. 
Stone,  18  Conn.  270;  Adams  v.  Adams, 
11  B.  Mon.  77;  Stokely's  Estate,  19  Pa. 
St.  476,  482  ;  Gibson  v.  Dowell,  42  Ark. 
164  ;  Moore  !•.  Jordan,  36  Kans.  271,  275. 

3  Gravillon  v.  Richard,  13  La.  293. 

*  Cassily  v.  Meyer,  4  Md.  1,  7  et  seq. ; 
Williams  v.  Williams,  5  Md  467  ;  Moii- 
rain  v.  Poydras,  6  La.  An.  151 ;  Gilchrist 
r.  Cannon,  1  Coldw.  581  ;  Porter  v.  Hey- 
dock,  6  Vt.  374 ;  Fretwell  r.  McLemore, 
52  Ala.  124  ;  In  re  Hughes,  95  N.  Y.  55 ; 
Young  ('.  Wittenmyre,  22  III.  App.  496; 
Nelson  and  Curtis,  JJ.,  in  i\Iackey  i\ 
Coxe,  18  How.  (U.  S.)  100,  105;  Carmi- 
chael  V.  Ray,  5  Ired.  Eq.  365,  holding 
that  the  administrator  of  the  domicil  can 
maintain  no  action  against  an  ancillary 
administrator  for  a  surplus  in  his  hands 
after  paying  debts  ;  Churchill  v.  Boyden, 
17  Vt.  319;  Adlum's  Estate,  6  Phila. 
347;  Parker's  Appeal,  61  Pa.  St.  478; 
Wright  V.  Phillips,  5(1  Ala.  69,  82  ;  Des- 
pard  V.  Churchill,  53  N.  Y.  192,  200; 
Trimble  v.  Dzieduzyiki,  57  How.  Pr.  208, 
21.3.  In  Brown  v.  Brown,  1  Barb.  Ch. 
189,  218,  the  Chancellor  suggests  that, 
"as  a  question  of  exiiediency,  certainly, 
those  who  have  claims  upon   an  estate 


376  DOMICILIAR   AND   ANCILLARY   JURISDICTION.  §  167 

Where  tlie  estate  administered  on  in  more  than  one  State  or 
country  is  fully  solvent,  the  rule  referred  to  is  of  easy  application, 
and  there  seems  to  be  no  occasion  to  doubt  the  correctness  of  the 
principle.  "For,"  says  Parker,  C.  J.,  of  the  Supreme  Judicial  Court 
of  Massachusetts,  "  it  would  be  but  an  idle  show  of  courtesy  to 
order  the  proceeds  of  an  estate  to  be  sent  to  a  foreign  country, 
the  province  of  Bengal,  for  instance,  and  oblige  our  citizens  to  go 
or  send  there  for  their  debts,  when  no  possible  prejudice  could 
arise  to  the  estate,  or  those  interested  in  it,  by  causing  them  to 
be  paid  here ;  ^  and  possibly  the  same  remark  may  be  applicable 
to  legacies  payable  to  legatees  living  here,  unless  the  circum- 
stances of  the  estate  should  require  the  funds  to  be  sent  abroad."  ^ 
Difficulty  of  But  with  reference  to  effects  collected  by  an  ancillary 
tuis  rule"  at-       administrator  of  an  insolvent  estate  the  question  is 

tending  insol-  ,  .    i       i  ?» 

vent  estates.  morc  difficult.  "We  canuot  thmk,  however,  says 
the  same  learned  judge, "  that  in  any  civilized  country  advantage 
ought  to  be  taken  of  the  accidental  circumstance  of  property 
being  found  within  its  territory,  which  may  lae  reduced  to  posses- 
sion b^  the  aid  of  its  courts  and  laws,  to  sequester  the  whole  for 
the  use  of  its  own  subjects  or  citizens,  where  it  shall  be  known 
that  all  the  estate  and  eftects  of  the  deceased  are  insufficient  to 
pay  his  just  debts.  .  .  .  Creditors  of  all  countries  have  the  same 
ri^j-ht  as  our  citizens  to  prove  their  claims  and  share  in  the  distri- 
bution." ^  But  to  send  the  effects  of  an  insolvent  estate  to  the 
domiciliar  administrator,  to  be  there  apportioned  among  all  the 

ought  to  be  compelled  to  resort  to  the  that  the  funds  be  sent  to  the  domicil  for 

courts  (if  tlie  country  where  the  decedent  distribution." 

was  domiciled,  and  where  the  personal  i  Creditors  having  the  same  domicil 

representatives   of    his    estate  were    ap-  with  the  deceased  will  not  be  allowed  to 

pointed  ;  especially  where  the  claimants  prove  their  claims  against  the  fund  of  the 

are  not  creditors,  but  stand  in  the  char-  ancillary  administration,  but  must  resort 

acters  of  legatees  or  distributees  of  the  to  that  of  the  domicil:  Barry's  Appeal, 

decedent."   ^See  Graveley  v.  Graveley,  25  88  Pa.  St.  131, 133  ,  Churchill  i:  Boyden, 

S.C.I,  21,  holding  that,  as  a  general  rule,  17  Vt.   319.     And   when    permitted    by 

legatees  go  to  the  administration  of  the  statute  to  do  so,  and  the  estate  is  insol- 

domicil,  but  that  "courts  of  the  ancillary  vent  in  both  States,  they  will  not  be  al- 

jurisdiction  have  the  right  to  order  the  lowed  to  prove  up  their  claims  against  the 

payment  of  a  legacy  or  the  distribution  ancillary  administration,  when  they  have 

of  funds  to  residuary  legatees,  or  under  already  received  a  larger  percentage  than 

the  statute  of  the  domicil,   whenever  it  the  creditors  of  the  latter :  Hays  v.  Cecil, 

appears  as  matter  of  fact  that  there  are  16  Lea,  160. 

funds  of  the  estate  in  the  hands  of  the  -  Dawes  o.  Head,  3  Pick.  128,  144  et 

ancillary  jurisdiction  ;    unless   for    some  seq. ;  In  re  Hughes,  95  N.  Y.  ^h.^ 

purpose  the  equities  of  the  parties  require  ^  Dawes  v.  Head,  3  Pick.  143  et  seq. 


§  167  PAYMENT   OF   DEBTS   TO   NON-RESIDENTS.  377 

creditors  according  to  the  laws  of  the  State  of  the  doinicil,  would 
work  equal  injustice  and  greater  inconvenience  to  the  creditors  in 
the  State  of  the  ancillary  administration,  "  whose  debts  might 
not  be  large  enough  to  bear  the  expense  of  proving  and  collecting 
them  abroad  ;  and  in  countries  where  there  is  no  provision  for 
equal  distribution,  the  pursuit  of  them  might  be  wholly  fruitless. 
As  in  Great  Britain,  our  citizens,  whose  debts  would  generally  be 
upon  simple  contracts,  would  be  postponed  to  creditors  by  judg- 
ment, bond,  etc.,  and  even  to  other  debts  upon  simple  contract 
which  might  be  preferred  by  the  executor  or  administrator.  It 
would  seem  too  great  a  stretch  of  courtesy  to  require  the  effects 
to  be  sent  home,  and  our  citizens  to  pursue  them  under  such  dis- 
advantages." ^  To  avoid  the  injustice  and  inconvenience  attendant 
upon  either  course,  Chief  Justice  Parker  suggested  the  rule,  now 
adopted  by  courts  in  some  States  and  in  some  enacted  by  statute,^ 
to  retain  the  funds  in  the  State  of  the  ancillary  ad-  Funds  retained 
ministration  for  a  pro  rata  distribution  according  to  p,^TrnZ^-m  &\\ 
the  laws  thereof  among  its  citizens,  having  regard  to  all  ^Ji^jfif'there" 
the  assets  in  the  hands  of  the  principal  as  well  as  of  the  "lay  ^e  assets. 
auxiliary  administrator,  and  also  to  all  of  the  debts  which  by  the 
laws  of  either  country  are  payable  out  of  the  decedent's  estate, 
without  regard  to  any  preference  which  may  be  given  to  one 
species  of  debt  over  another,  considering  the  funds  in  each  State 
as  applicable,  first,  to  the  payment  of  the  just  proportion  due  to 
its  citizens,  and,  if  there  be  any  residue,  that  should  be  remitted 
to  the  principal  administrator,  to  be  dealt  with  according  to  the 
laws  of  his  country.-^  The  learned  judge,  in  his  exhaustive  review 
of  the  subject  under  consideration,  points  out  some  difficulties 
attending  the  practical  application  of  this  rule,  and  suggests  how 
they  may  be  met;  but  even  the  comprehensive  powers  of  a  court 
of  chancery,  to  which  he  refers  the  solution  of  all  difficulties 
which  probate  courts  are  impotent  to  surmount,  would  seem  in- 
adequate to  meet  all  complications  that  might  arise,  unless  the 

1  Ibid.  146.     Where  a  foreign  creditor     508  ;  Vermont:  Prentiss  v.  Van  Ness,  31 
asks  for  a  dividend  of  a  decedent's  estate,     Vt.  0.5,  100. 

he  must  take  it  subject  to  tlie  priorities  '  Dawes  v.  Head,  3  Pick.  128,  146  et 

established   by    the   law   of    the   forum:  seq.;  Davis  y.  Estey,  8  Pick.  475;  Harvey 

Miller's  Estate,  3  Rawle,  312,320;  Holmes  v.  Richards,  1  Mas.  381,  421 ;  Churchill  v. 

V.  Remsen,  20  John.  229,  205.  Boyden,  17  Vt.  319;  Lawrence  v.  Elmen- 

2  So  in  Missouri:  Rev.  St.  1879,  §§  268  dorf,  5  Barb.  73;   Hays  v.  Cecil,  16  Lea, 
-281 ;    Massachusetts  :    Gen.  St.  1860,  p.  160. 


378  DOMICILIAR    AND   ANCILLARY   JURISDICTION.  §   168 

spirit  of  comity  which  he  ascribes  to  the  courts  should  also  lead 
our  legislatures  to  come  to  their  aid  by  proper  statutory  enact- 
ments.^ 

Non-resident  creditors  of  an  insolvent  estate  may,  in  some 
States,  prove  their  claims  against  the  ancillary  administration, 
and  subject  the  real  estate  of  the  intestate  to  their  payment,  with- 
out showing  that  the  personal  property  of  the  estate  in  the  State 
of  the  domicil  has  been  exhausted.'-^ 

§  168.  Real  Estate  governed  by  the  Lex  Rei  Sitae.  —  It  is  a  rule 
conditioned  by  imperative  necessity,  that  immovable  property 
Probate  and  should  be  governed,  especially  in  respect  of  its  trans- 
wliTmuTtcon-  mission,  by  the  law  of  the  country  in  which  it  is  situ- 
on'hJstate'hT  ^tcd.^  For  this  reason  the  execution  and  probate  of 
which  devised    ^  ^j^  must  conform  strictly  to  the  law  of  the  State  in 

property  is  ... 

situated.  whicli  land  is  therein  devised,*  and  this  law  is  also  to 

govern  "  as  to  the  capacity  of  the  testator  "  and  "  the  extent  of 

his  power  to  dispose  of  the  property."  ^     So  the  de- 

DcscGnt  fllso 

governed  by      sccnt  and  heirship  of  real  estate  are  exclusively  gov- 
erned by  the  law  of  the  country  within  which  it  is 
actually  situate.     No  person  can  take,  except  those  who  are  recog- 

1  An  illustration  of   some  of  the  dif-  payment  in  full  before  any  of  the  funds 

fieulties  attending  the  application  of  this  are  applied  to  the  payment  of  the  next 

rule,    which    is    enacted   by   statute    in  class.     It  so  happened   that  the   largest 

Missouri,  came  within  the  personal  ex-  debt  was  proved  during  the  second  year 

perience  of  the  writer.     Debts  to  a  con-  of     administration,    and    was    therefore 

siderable   amount   were    proved   against  placed   in  the  sixth  class ;  and  altliough 

the   ancillary  administrator   in  Missouri  by  reason  of  its  magnitude  it  secured  in 

of  an  intestate  domiciled  in  Tennessee,  the  adjustment  between  the  creditors  of 

in  excess  of  the  assets  under  administra-  the  two  States  a  sufficient  amount  for  the 

tion  in  Missouri.     The  estate  in  the  dom-  payment  in  full  of  the  Missouri  creditors 

iciliar  jurisdiction   was  also   represented  of  the  first   four  classes,  and  nearly  in 

as  insolvent.     To  determine  the  rate  of  full  of  the  fifth  class,  yet  the  sixth  class 

payment  to  which  Missouri  creditors  were  creditor  received  nothing, 

entitled,   it   was  necessary   to   ascertain  ^  Rosenthal    v.   Renick,  44    111.    202, 

the  amount   of  assets   in    the   hands    of  207. 

the    domiciliar    administrator,    as    well  ^  See  Whart.  Confl.  L.  §  560 ,  Story, 

as   the   amount  of   debts   proved   there,  Confl.  L.  §  48-3,  Westl.  Pr.  Int.  L.  §  14G  ; 

which    the   ancillary  administrator   was  McCormick  v    Sullivant,  10  Wheat.  IV'I, 

unable  to  report  for  a  number  of  years,  202;  United  States  j;.  Fox,  104  U.  S.  315, 

during  all  of    which  time   the  Missouri  320. 

creditors   were   deprived  of   the  money  *  As  to  the  probate   and  validity   of 

rightfully    belonging   to    them.     Again,  foreign   wills,   see  post,  §226;    Kerr  v. 

under  the  law  of  Missouri,  the  demands  Moon,  9  Wheat.  565,  572. 

against  estates  of  deceased  persons  are  ^  Story,  Confl.  L.  §  474  ;  Applegate  v. 

divided  into  six  classes,  the  first  five  of  Smith,  31  Mo,  166,  169 ;  Whart.  Confl.  L. 

which  must  be  proved  during  tlie  first  §  575  ;   Washburn  v.  Van  Steenwyk,   32 

year,   and  each  of  which  is  entitled  to  Minn.  386,  347. 


§  169  ALIMONY    OF    WIDOW    AND   CHILDREN.  379 

nized  as  legitimate  heirs  by  the  laws  of  that  country ;  and  they 
take  in  tiie  proportions  and  in  the  order  which  these  laws  pre- 
scribe.i  All  the  authorities,  both  in  England  and  America,  so 
far  as  they  go,  recognize  the  principle  in  its  fullest  import,  that 
real  estate,  or  immovable  property,  is  exclusively  subject  to  the 
laws  of  the  country  within  whose  territory  it  is  situate.^  The 
reason  of  the  rule  includes  leasehold  and  chattel  in-  i„(,]uji„g 
terests  in  land,^  servitudes  and  easements,  and  other  1*^:'^ '"•>'i*. 

■  '  and  clialtel 

charges  on  lands,  as  mortgages  and  rents,  and  trust  infr^^ts  -en- 

'^  o    <=  erallv,  survi- 

estates ;  all  of  these  are  deemed  to  be,  in  the  sense  oi  tude's,  and 
the  law,  immovables,  and  governed  by  the  lex  rei  sitce.'^ 
And  as  to  what  constitutes  immovable  or  real   property  resort 
must  also  be  had  to  the  lex  loci  rei  sitoe.^ 

In  Mississippi  the  statute  provides  that  not  only  real  estate, 
but  "  all  personal  property  situated  in  this  State,  shall  descend  and 
be  distributed  according  to  the  laws  of  this  State."  ^  j^^  Mississippi 
Under  this  statute  it  is  held  that  monev  in  a  bank  in  aH  estate 

passes  under 

the  State  of  Mississippi,  and  a  note  secured  by  real  the  law  of 

•       1     1     1     •(>  ,1        1  ■,  Jn       ^      that  State. 

estate  there,  are  not  included,  it  the  deposit  certincate 
and  book  and  the  note  are  found  at  the  foreign  domicil  of  the 
intestate,  who  has  no  creditors,  heirs,  or  property  in  this  State, 
and  the  domiciliar  court  orders  distribution;'^  but  choses  in  action 
held  by  an  agent  in  this  State  for  an  owner  domiciled  in  another 
State,  taken  in  the  course  of  business  of  lending  money  in  this 
State,  must  be  distributed  under  its  laws.^ 

§  169.  Provisional  Alimony  of  Wido-w  and  Minor  Children.  — 
It  appears  from  what  has  been  stated  in  an  earlier  chapter,^  that 
a  non-resident  widow  is  in  some  States  allowed  a  certain  portion 
of  the  estate  of  her  deceased  husband  to  protect  her  and  her 
minor  children  from  want  and  privation,^^  while  this  is  denied  to 


1  Story,  Confl.  L.  §  483.  the  owner :  Despard  v.  Churchill,  53  N.  Y. 

'^  Ihid  ,  §  428,  and  aiitliorities    under  192,  198  et  seq. 

notes  (2)  and  (a);  and  see  collection  of  *  Story,  Confl.  L.  §  447;  Knox  r.  Jones, 

authorities  by  Mr.  Justice  Miller,  in  Brine  47  N.  Y.  389,  395. 

V.  Insurance  Co.,  96  U.  S.  627,  635  et  seq.  5  Chapman  v.  Robertson,  6  Pai.  627, 

3  Story,  Confl.  L.  §  447,  note  (a),  cit-  630. 

ing  Freke  v.  Carbery,  L.  R.  16  Eq.  461 ;  In  6  Code,  1880,  §  1270. 

Goods  of  Gentili,  Ir.  R.  9  Eq.  541.     But  7  Speed  v.  Kelly,  59  Miss.  47,  50. 

in  New  York  a  leasehold  has  been  held  ^  jahier  v.  Rascoe,  62  Miss.  690,  703. 

to  be  personal  property,  and  as  such,  as  ^  Ante,  §  89. 

to  its  transmission  by  last  will,  controlled  w  New  York,  Georgia,  and  Louisiana 

by  the  law  which  governed  the  person  of  are  there  mentioned. 


380  DOMICILIAR    AND    ANCILLARY    JURISDICTION.  §  169 

non-residents  in  others.^  It  seems,  on  principle,  that  the  statutes 
made  for  the  protection  of  the  family  against  the  suffering  and 
destitution  threatening  them  on  the  decease  of  their  natural  pro- 
tector should  be  construed  so  as  to  accomplish  their  purpose. 
Hence  the  widow  should  be  entitled  to  avail  herself  of  such  a  law 
if  in  force  in  the  place  of  her  residence,  although  her  husband 
was  domiciled  in  another  State.^  But  while  the  law  of  the  dece- 
dent's domicil  must  govern  as  to  the  distribution,  descent,  or  tes- 
tamentary disposition  of  personal  property  to  the  widow  or  minor 
children,  it  seems  clear  that  the  law  of  the  forum  must  determine 
the  relief  against  destitution  and  distress  of  resident  families.^ 

1  So  in  Alabama,  Missouri,  Massa-  ^  piatt's  Appeal,  80  Pa.  St.  501  ;  dis- 
chusetts,  North  Carolina,  and  Pennsyl-  senting  opinion  of  Jackson,  J.,  in  Mitchell 
vania.  v.  Word,  64  Ga.  208,  219 ;  Whart.  Confl. 

2  Whart.  Confl.  L.  §  189.  L.  §§  189,  791. 


PART    SECOND. 

OF  THE  OFFICE  OF  EXECUTORS  AND  ADMINISTRATORS. 


CHAPTER   XVIIL 

NATURE   OF   THE   TITLE    VESTING    IN    EXECUTORS    AND 
ADMINISTRATORS. 

§  170.  Conduit  of  the  Inheritance.  —  Under  the  ancient  Roman 
law  the  suus  hceres  succeeded  to  the  inheritance  immediately 
upon  the  death  of  the  ancestor,  without  any  act  of  his  Heirs  liable  for 
own;i  and  he,  as  well  as  the  hceres  necessarius,^  was  uE'the'^^'^*^ 
legally  bound  by  all  the  debts  of  the  deceased,  neither  Roman  law. 
of  them  having  the  right  to  renounce  the  inheritance.^  A  differ- 
ent doctrine  prevails  in  England,  and  generally  in  the  ^.^^^^  ^^^  ^^^^ 

United  States.     The  damnosa  hcereditas  of  debts,  rest-  debts  to  the  ex- 
tent of  assets  in 

ing  under  the  Roman  law  upon  heirs,  whether  a  testato  England  and 

jVniGricft 

or  ah  intestato,  is  by  our  system  limited  to  the  assets. 

The  real  estate  descends  to  the  heirs  and  devisees,  subject  to  the 

power  of  the  executor  or  administrator  to  convert  the  same  into 

1  Sandar's  Inst.  Just.  365 ;  citing  Dig.  the  lieirsliip  if  liis  debts  were  suspected 
xxxviii.  16.  14.  to  exceed  tlie  vai ae  of  the  estate  ;  but  a 

2  A  slave  instituted  heir  of  his  master  slave  could  not  refuse  to  take  upon  him- 
by  testament,  and  called  hcvres  necessarius  self  the  office,  so  that,  if  instituted  heir, 
because,  whether  he  wished  it  or  not,  he  the  goods  would  be  sold,  not  in  the  name 
became  instantly  free  by  the  death  of  the  of  the  deceased  debtor,  but  in  that  of  the 
testator,  and  thereby  the  necessary  heir  :  emancipated  slave  :  lb.  103. 

Sand.  Just.  309.     The  practice  of  enfran-  »  By    later   changes   in   the   law   this 

ciiising  slaves  owed  its  origin  to  tlie  great  hardship  was  removed      It  is  provided  in 

stigma  which  the  sale  of  a  deceased  per-  Justinian's  Institutes  that  heirs  may  enter 

son's  effects  for  the  payment  of  his  debts  upon  their  inheritance  and  not  be  liable 

cast  upon  his  memory.     Since  under  a  for  debts  beyond  the  value  of  the  estate, 

Eoraan  testament  the  instituted  heir  as-  by  claiming  what  commentators  call  the 

sumed  all  the  liabilities  of  tlie  testator,  it  beneficium  inventarii:  Sand.  Just.  315,  316, 

was  not  likely  that  any  one  would  accept  citing  Gal.  ii.  163,  c.  vi.  30.  22. 


882  EXECUTORS   AND   ADMINISTRATORS.  §  171 

personalty  for  the  payment  of  the  decedent's  debts ;  the  real  or 
personal  property  set  apart  for  the  widow  and  minor  children  goes 
to  them  absolutely,  and  the  personal  property  goes  to  the  executor 
or  administrator  to  be  distributed,  after  payment  of  debts,  to 
legatees  or  next  of  kin.^  It  will  now  be  proper  to  inquire  into 
the  nature  and  extent  of  the  authority  conferred  upon  the  officers 
employed  by  the  law  to  give  effect  to  the  will  of  a  decedent  in 
respect  of  his  property ,2  and  whose  function  it  is  to  personate 
the  deceased  in  all  matters  touching  the  posthumous  disposition 
of  his  affairs.^ 

§  171.  Distinction  between  Executors  and  Administrators.  — The 
functions,  powers,  liabilities,  rights,  and  duties  of  executors  are 
in  most  respects  identical  with  those  of  administrators.  The 
legislature  of  Iowa  explained  by  statute  that  "  the  term  '  executor ' 
includes  an  administrator,  where  the  subject  matter  applies  to  an 
administrator";*  and  that  the  word  "  executor,"  as  used  in  the 
title  concerning  estates  of  decedents,  is  intended  to  be  applied-^ 
the  persons  who  administer  upon  the  estate  of  one  deceased, 
whether  appointed  by  the  will  or  otherwise.^  "  But  however  great 
the  similarity  between  the  two  offices  may  be,  there  are  some 
essential  distinctions  which  cannot  be  ignored  or  abolished  even 
by  legislation,  without  a  change  in  the  law  of  administration  so 
radical  as  to  be  improbable,  at  least  for  many  years  to  come,^ 

The  decisive  difference  between  them  arises  out  of  the  method 
of  their  appointment :  executors  represent  their  testators  by  vir- 
Distinction  be-  ^uc  of  the  act  of  the  tcstator  himself,  while  the  au- 
anradmhiis-"*^^  thority  of  the  administrator  is  derived  exclusively 
trators.  from  the  appointment  by  some  competent  court.    "An 


1  Mr.  Wharton,  in  his  able  treatise  on  and  exempted  personalty  go  to  you'  "  : 

the  Conflict  of  Laws,  states  tlie  doctrine  Confl.  L.  §  552. 

thus  :    "  The   law  sa3's,    '  We   recognize  ^  Ante,  §  10. 

you  as  in  your  own  persons  tlie  successors  ^  A7ite,  §  136. 

of  your  deceased  ancestor.     But,  in  order  *  Code,  1886,  §  45,  par.  21. 

to  prevent  conflict  and  promote  speed,  we  ^  Laws,  1860,  §  2333. 

appoint  a  public  officer  who  is  to  see  that  ^  The  author  of  the  Iowa  Digest  com- 

the  claims  of  third  parties  are  properly  plains  that  this  "peculiarity"  was  copied 

settled,  at  the  period  when  this  new  devo-  into  the  Eevision  of  1860  and  the  Code 

lution    of   the   estate   commences.     This  of  1873,  and  says    that  "  this  statutory 

officer,  on  the  principle  of  universal  sue-  innovation  in  the  language  of  the  law  is 

cession,    represents   your    ancestor   until  without   any  perceived    benefit,  and    at- 

his  debts  are  paid  and  the  plan  of  distri-  tended     with    some   inconveniences  "     1 

bution  settled.     But  at  once,  on  the  prin-  Withrow  &  Styles,  Dig.  1874,  p.  610. 
ciple  of  singula)-  succession,  the  real  estate 


§  172  WHEN   THE   TITLE   VESTS.  383 

executor  can  derive  his  ofTicc  from  a  testamentary  appointment 
only";^  the  administrator,  on  the  other  hand,  derives  his  autJKjr- 
itv  wholly  from  the  probate  court ;  he  has  none  until  letters  of 
administration  are  granted.^  From  this  distinction  important 
questions  frequently  arise  with  regard  to  the  time  when  the  au- 
thority or  liability  of  the  one  or  other  originated,  which  will  be 
more  fully  considered  hereafter.^ 

An  important  distinction  exists  also  in  respect  of  the  power  to 
liold,  manage,  and  alienate  the  property  of  the  deceased :  the 
authority  of  the  administrator  is  commensurate  with  the  provis- 
ions of  the  law  on  the  subject,  as  existing  and  recognized  in  the 
forum  of  his  appointment ;  but  the  will  of  the  testator  is  in  itself 
a  law  to  the  executor,  which  may  enlarge  or  circumscribe  the 
authority  or  discretion  which  an  administrator  would  have,  and 
which,  to  the  extent  in  which  it  is  not  repugnant  to  the  law  of  the 
State,  he  must  strictly  observe.*      f  - 

§  172.  When  the  Title  vests  in  the  Executor,  and  when  in  the 
Administrator.  —  An  executor  is  a  person  appointed  by  a  testator 
to  carry  out  the  directions  and  requests  in  his  will,   . 

•'  ,  ,  At  common  law 

and  to  dispose  of  the  property  according  to  his  testa-  title  of  execu- 
mentary  provisions  after  his  decease.^    As  his  interest  testator's 
in  the  estate  of  the  deceased  is  derived  from  the  will,    '^^^^' 
it  vests,  according  to  the  common  law,  from  the  moment  of  tlie 
testator's  death.^     The  will  becomes  operative,  including  the  ap- 
pointment of  the  executor,  not  by  the  probate  thereof,  nor  by  the 
act  of  the  executor  in  qualifying,  which  are  said  to  be  mere  cere- 
monies of  authentication,  but  by  the  death  of  the  testator."     On 
the  other  hand,  an  administrator  is  one  to  whom  the  goods  and 

1  Wms.  Ex.  [239],  citing  Wentw.  Ex.  *  Thus,  if  a  trust  be  created  in  a  will 
p.  3:  "Hence  it  followetli  necessarily,  and  no  trustee  named,  it  is  incumbent 
that  a  will  is  the  only  bed  where  an  exec-  upon  the  executor  (or  upon  any  person 
utor  can  be  begotten  or  conceived  ;  for  who  may  become  by  law  intrusted  with 
where  no  will  is  there  can  be  no  executor;  the  execution  of  the  will)  to  carry  out 
and  this  is  so  conspicuous,  and  evident  the  trust :  Saunderson  r.  Stearns,  G  Mass. 
to  every  low  capacity,  that  it  needs  no  37,  39  ;  Dorr  v.  Wainwright,  13  Pick.  328, 
proof  or  illustration."  Hartnett  v.  Wan-  331 ;  Groton  v.  Ruggles,  17  Me.  137  ; 
dell,  GO  N.  Y.  346,  350.  Scott  v.   West,  63    Wis.   629,   558,  and 

2  Wms.  Ex.   [630].     If  the  court  ap-  authorities  cited. 

pointing  had  no  jurisdiction,  the  acts  of  ^  Whart.  Law  Lex.,  "  Executor." 

the  administrator  are  void,  and  may  be  ^  Wms.  Ex.  [G29]. 

collaterally  impeached:   Unknown  Heirs  '  Wankford  iv  Wankford,  1  Salk.  209; 

V.  Baker,  23  111.  484  Graysbrook    v.    Fox,   1   Plowd.    R.   275, 

3  Post,  §§  185,  186,  187.  277  a. 


384  EXECUTORS    AND    ADMINISTRATORS.  §  I'J'S 

effects  of  a  person  dying  intestate,  or  without  appointing  an  ex- 
andinthead-  ccutor  who  survives  and  accepts  the  office,  are  com- 
frourgia"!  niitted  by  the  probate  court.i  Deriving  his  authority 
of  letters.  wholly  froni  his  appointment  by  the  court  his  title  to 

the  property  of  the  deceased  vests  in  him  only  from  the  time  of 
the  grant.2 

In  respect  of  executors,  however,  the  common  law  has  been 
materially  modified  in  many  of  the  States,  and  the  doctrine  that 
Common  law  their  powcrs  are  conferred  directly  by  the  will  is 
as\7execlfors  ^ostly  repudiated.  "  The  fact  that  one  is  named  in 
in  most  States,  ^j^g  ^r{\i  as  executor  docs  not,  as  at  common  law, 
make  him  executor  in  fact,  but  only  gives  him  the  right  to  be- 
come executor  upon  complying  with  the  conditions  required  by 
law."  3  "  At  death,  a  man's  property  really  passes  into  the  iiaiids 
of  the  law  for  administration,  as  much  when  he  dies  testate  as 
when  he  dies  intestate ;  except  that,  in  the  former  case,  he  fixes 
the  law  of  its  distribution  after  payment  of  his  debts,  and  usually 
appoints  the  persons  who  are  to  execute  his  will.  But  even  this 
appointment  is  only  provisional,  and  requires  to  be  approved  by 
the  law  before  it  is  complete  ;  and  therefore  the  title  to  the  office 
of  executor  is  derived  rather  from  the  law  than  the  will."  *  Most 
States  announce  this  doctrine,  among  which  may  be  mentioned 
Alabama,^  Arkansas,^  Georgia,'  Kentucky ,8  Louisiana,^  Maine,^" 
Massachusetts,"  Missouri,!^  ^^w  Hampshire,!^  New  York,!^  Pcnn- 

I  Whart.  Law  Lex.,  "  Administra-  ^^  Tappan  v.  Tappan,  30  N.  H.  50,  69. 
tor."  But   in    a   subsequent    case,    Shirley    v. 

-'  Wms.  Ex.  [630]  ;  Woolley  r.  Clark,  Healds,  U  N.  H.  407,  410,  the  common 

5  B.  &  Aid.  744,  745;  Rand  v.  Hubbard,  law  rule  is  relied  on,  and  authorities  cited 

4  Met.  (Mass.)  252,  256.  by  the  Supreme  Court  of  New  Hampshire 

3  Bliss,  J  ,  in  Stagg  v.  Green,  47  Mo.  in  support  of  its  validity.     Neitlier  of  tiie 

500,  501.  cases  is  binding  upon  the  question  under 

*  Shoenberger    v.    Lancaster,  28   Pa.  consideration   further   than   tiiat   in   tlie 

St.  459,  466.  former  it  is  held  that  an  executor  has  no 

5  Gardner  w.  Gantt,  19  Ala.  6G6;  Wood  authority  to  maintain  an  action  before 
V.  Cosby,  76  Ala  57.  probate  of  the  will,  and  in  the  hitter  tliat 

6  Diamond  v.  Sliell,  15  Ark.  26.  it  is  his  duty  to  propound  tiie  will  for 
^  Echols  V.  Barrett,  6  Ga.  443.                    probate,  unless  he  refuse  the  trust,  and  he 

8  Carter  v.  Carter,  10  B.  Mon.  327,  330.     may  appeal  from  the  decree  of  the  probate 

9  Succession  of  Vogel,  20  La.  An.  81.        court  disallowing,  rejecting,  or  refusing 
i»  McKeen  v.  Frost,  46  Me.  239;  but     probate   thereof,   basing  the   reason   for 

see  Hathorn  v.  Eaton,  70  Me.  219.  sucli  right  to  appeal  upon  his  title  to  the 

II  Dublin  V.  Chadbourn,  16  Mass.  4.33,  personal  estate  of  the  deceased  under  the 
441 ;  Rand  v.  Hubbard,  4  Met.   (Mass.)  will,  according  to  the  common  law  rule. 
252,2.57.  "Bellinger    v.   Ford,    21    Barb.    311, 

1^  Stagg  V.  Green,  supra.  315. 


§  173  TITLE    RELATING    TO   DECEDENT'S    DEATH.  385 

sylvania,^  Rhode  Island,-  South  Carolina,  Tennessee,'^  Vermont,'* 
and  Virginia.^ 

§  173.  Relation  of  the  Appointment  to  the  Time  of  the  Testator's 
or  Intestate's  Death.  —  For  particular  purposes  the  letters  of  ad- 
ministration relate  back  to  the  time  of  the  death  of  the  ,  ,   . 

Letters  of  ad- 

intcstate,'^  and  vest  the  property  in  the  administrator  ministration 
from  that  time,"  attaching  to  property  coming  from  a  tiie  intestate's 
foreign  jurisdiction  as  soon  as  it  comes  into  that  of  '''*''' 
the  domicil.^  On  this  principle,  an  administrator  may  maintain 
trespass  for  injuries  to  the  goods  of  the  intestate  committed  after 
his  death  and  before  the  appointment ;  ^  or  trover  for  property  so 
wrongfully  detained  ;  ^'^  or  on  a  contract  made  with  the  defendant 
before  appointment ;  ^^  or  assumpsit  for  money  paid  to  defendant's 
order.^2  And  on  the  same  principle,  the  heirs  have  no  power, 
before  the  appointment  of  an  administrator,  to  bind  the  personal 
estate  by  any  agreement.^^  "  This  doctrine  of  relation  is  a  fiction 
of  law  to  prevent  injustice,  and  the  occurrence  of  injuries  where 
otherwise  there  would  be  no  remedy  ;  and  would  not  be  applied 
in  cases  where  the  rights  of  innocent  parties  intervened  ;  "  ^"^  nor 
"  to  recognize,  validate,  and  bind  the  estate  by  the  unauthorized 
acts  which  have  been  done  to  the  prejudice  of  the  estate,  by  any 
one,  while  the  title  was  in  abeyance  ; "  ^^  nor  to  give  effect  to 
the  statute  of  limitation,  which  does  not  run  during  the  period 
intervening  between  the  death  of  the  intestate  and  the  grant  of 
letters.i*^      The  principle    is  applicable,  a   fortiori,   to   executors 

1  Shoenberger  v.   Lancaster    Savings  ^  Brackett  v.  Hoitt,  20  N.  H.  257,  259. 

Institution,  supra.  i"  Manwell  v.  Brisks,  17  Vt.  176,  181 ; 

^  Gaskill  V.  Gaskill,  7  R.  I.  478.  Hatch  v.  Proctor,  102  Mass.  351,  353. 

3  Martin  v.  Peck,  2  Yerg.  298.  "  Brown  v.   Lewis,  9   R.  I.  497,   500, 

*  Trask  v.  Donogliue,  1  Aik.  370.  citing  English  cases;    Hatch  v.  Proctor, 

5  Monroe  v.  James,  4  Munf.  194.  stipra;  Leber  v.   Kauffelt,  5  W.  &  S.  440, 

f'  Wins.   Ex.    [031],    citing   numerous  445  (an  action  on  a  bond  of  indemnity  to 

English  authorities;  Alvord  1-.  Marsli,  12  the   intestate,    wliere    the    administrator 

Alien,  003,  G04  ;    McVaiigliters  v.  Elder,  paid  the  claim  constituting   the   breach 

2  Brev.  307,  313;  Miller  (;.  Reigne,  2  Hill,  before  appointment). 

(S.  C.)  592,  594;  Bullock  v.  Rogers,  16  i^  ciark  v.  Pishon,  31  Me.  503. 

Vt.  294,  296.  13  Stahl  v.  Brown,  72  Iowa,  720. 

"  Lawrence  v.  Wright,  23  Pick.  128,  "  i^gr  Napton,  J.,  in  Wilson  v.  Wilson, 

129;  Gilkey  v.  Hamilton,  22  Mich.  283,  54  Mo.  213,  216. 

286.     But  the  title  to  real  estate  does  not  i^  Per  Cooley,  J.,  in  Gilkey  v.  Hamil- 

vest  in  the  administrator  until  there  be  ton,  supm ;  Wiswell  v.  Wiswell,  35  Minn. 

a  decree  to  that  effect :  Lane  v.  Thompson,  371 ;  Cook  v.  Cook,  24  S.  C.  204. 

43  N.  H.  320,  325.  16  Benjamin  r.  DeGroot,  1  Denio,  151  ; 

8  Wellsr.  Miller,  45111.  382,  387,  citing  Polk  v.  Allen,  19  Mo.  467;  post,  §§  401, 

Collins  ('.  Bankhead,  1  Strohh.  25.  402,  under  payment  of  debts. 
VOL.   I.  —  25 


386  EXECUTORS    AND   ADMINISTRATORS.  §  174 

and  letters         [yi   all   of  tliG   Statos  in  wliicli  tliov  are    required  to 

testaninntavv 

toiiufinu;"  give  bond  before  induction  into  office,  or  where,  for 
death.  any  reason,  the  common  law  rule,  according-  to  wliich 

they  derive  their  authority  from  the  testator,  and  not  from  the 
court,  is  modified  by  statute.^  Mr.  Redfield  apprehends  that  by 
reason  of  the  doctrine  of  relation,  by  which  the  estate  vests  in  the 
administrator  from  the  death  of  the  intestate,  the  distinction 
between  executors  and  administrators  as  to  the  time  of  the  vest- 
ing of  the  title  has  become  of  no  practical  importance.^ 

§  174.  Title  of  Executors  and  Administrators  in  auter  Droit.  — 
The  interest  which  an  executor  or  administrator  has  in  the  estate 
^. ,    ^  of  the   deceased  is  in  auter  droit  merely  :   he  is  tiie 

Title  of  exec-  '' 

ut(irs  and  ad-     minister  or  dispenser  of  the  goods  of  the  dead.^    Since 

ministrators  is  .  •       r   ^^ 

in  the  right  the  property  IS  not  his  own,  it  loUows  that  he  may 
maintain  an  action  therefor  in  auter  droits  although 
he  himself  be  disabled  from  snmg  propria  jure  /"^  and  any  one 
claiming  the  same  under  a  title  from  him  in  his  private  or  per- 
sonal capacity  must  show  that  he  has  ceased  to  hold  it  in  a 
.     ,  ,     representative  capacity.^     If  the  executor  or  adminis- 

Assets  are  not  *  . 

liable  for  the      trator  bccomc  bankrupt,  having  property  in  possession 

ci6fc)ts  of  GXGC" 

utors  or  admin-  of  liis  tcstator  or  intcstatc  distinguishable  from  his 
own,  it  is  not  liable  to  the  bankrupt's  creditors,  though 
it  should  be  money  ;  nor  can  the  property  so  distinguishable  be 
seized  in  execution  of  a  judgment  against  the  executor  or  admin- 
nor  subject  to  istrator  in  his  own  right.^  Although  the  goods  held 
tes^trmentarv^  '^^  ^^  cxccutor  pass,  as  thcv  do  at  common  law,  in 
disposition,"  some  of  the  States,  to  his  executor,  yet  he  cannot  in 
his  will  dispose  of  any  of  the  goods  so  held  to  a  legatee,  for  he 
holds  them  in  auter  droit  only,  and  cannot  bequeath  anything  but 
nor  to  the  wliat  lie  has  to  his  own  use.'     And  similarly,  where 

m.'jritai  rights     ^^iQ  common  law  rulc  still  exists  by  w^hich  marriage 

(it  executrix  s  •'  '^ 

husband.  operates  as  an  unqualified  gift  to  the  husband  of  all 

1  Schoul.    Ex.    &    Adm.   §   194,  and  Mo.  431,  434,  overruling  former  Missouri 

authorities ;  lb.  §  238.  cases,  in  wliic-li  it  had  been  held  that  the 

-  3  Redf.  on  Wills,  127.  executor  or  administrator  is,   for  every 

3  Wentw.  Ex.  192  ;  Weeks  v.  Gibbs,  purpose,  the  owner  of  the  money  of  the 

9  Mass.  74,  75;   Lewis  v.  Lyons,  13  III.  decedent  which  had  come  to  his  hands. 
117,   121 ;   Carter  v.  National   Bank,   71  o  Branch  Bank  v.  Wade,  13  Ala.  427  ; 

Me.  448.  Marvel  v.  Babbitt,  143  Mass.  226. 

*  Wms.  Ex.  [636].  ">  Wms.  Ex.   [6431,  citing  Bransby  v. 

5  3  Redf.  on  Wills,  130,  pi.  2 ;  Weeks  Grantham,  Plowd.  625,  and  Godoiph.,  pt. 

V.  Gibbs,  supra  ;  Leasing  v.  Vertrees,  32  2,  c.  17,  s.  3. 


§175 


POWER    OF    ALIENATION. 


387 


tlio  wife's  goods  and  i>ersonal  chattels,  yet  it  will  make  no  gift  to 
liim  of  the  goods  and  chattels  which  belong  to  the  wife  in  auter 
droit  as  execntrix  or  administratrix.'  Tiie  possession  of  personal 
property  acquired  as  an  adniinisti-ator  cannot  be  united  to  and 
perfect  an  equitable  title  which  lie  holds  in  his  own  right,  so  as  to 
defeat  an  action  by  the  party  having  the  legal  estate.'-^  But  where 
a  chose  in  action  has  been  assigned,  and  the  assignee  become 
adininisti-ator  of  the  assignor's  estate  after  his  death,  he  may 
recover  as  administrator  to  his  own  use,  and  without  accountin<r 
to  the  estate.-^ 

§  175.  Power  of  Alienation.- — But  an  executor  or  administrator 
has  at  common  law  power  to  dispose  of  and  alien  the  assets  of 
the  decedent ;  *  he  has  absolute  power  over  them  for  ^ 

■  Common  law 

this  purpose,  and  they  cannot  be  followed  by  the  cred-  right  to  dispose 

p  ji        1  1  K        i       1    1  of  the  a?sfts. 

itors  ot  the  deceased.^     And  he  may  convert  them  to 
his  own  use,  thus  making  himself  chargeable  for  the  amount,  and 
subjecting  them  thus  converted  to  the  same  incidents  and  liabili- 
ties, in  all  respects,  as  if  they  had  never  belonged  to  the  estate  of 
the  deceased.^    Thus,  under  the  common  law  doctrine  Rirrhttoap- 
of  retainer,  if  the  testator  or  intestate  died  indebted  P'""!""'"!''  f  f<^'s 

'  under  doctrine 

to  the  executor  or  administrator,  or  where  the  latter,  of  retainer. 


'  Co.  Lit.  351  a  ;  Tlinnipson  n.  Pincliell, 
11  Mod.  177,  by  Powell,  J.  Tims,  if  hus- 
band and  wife  recover  judgment  for  a 
tlebt  due  to  the  wife  as  e.xecutri.x,  and  tlie 
wife  dies,  the  husband  sliall  not  have  a 
scire  fdcias  upon  the  judgment,  but  the 
succeeding  executor  or  administrator  : 
Beamond  i\  Long,  Cro.  Car.  208,  227  ; 
s.  c.  W.  Jones,  248.  But  the  husband  is 
entitled  to  administer  in  liis  vvife's  right 
for  his  own  safet}',  lest  she  misapply  the 
funds,  in  whicb  case  be  would  be  liable  ; 
and  incident  to  tins  right  he  has  the 
power  of  disposition  over  the  personal 
estate  vested  in  his  wife  as  executrix  or 
administratrix  :  Wms.  Ex.  [644). 

■^  Gamble  v.  Gamble,  11  Ala.  966. 

^  Dawes  v.  Boylston,  0  Mass.  oo7,  343. 

*  The  subject  of  how  the  assets  of  an 
estate  may  be  transferred  is  discussed, 
also,  post,  §  331. 

5  Harper  v.  Butler,  2  Pet.  239;  "  The 
title  which  is  vested  in  the  executor 
carries  with  it  the  jus  disponoidi  which 
generally  inheres  in  the  ownership  of 
property  "  :  Petersen  v.  Chemical  Bank, 


32  N.  Y.  21.  45,  per  Denio,  C.  J.  ;  "A 
bare  act  of  sale  of  the  assets  by  the  ex- 
ecutor is  a  sufficient  indemnity  to  the 
purchaser,  if  there  be  no  collusicm  "  : 
Sutherland  r.  Brush,  7  John.  Ch.  17,  21, 
per  Kent,  Ch. ;  Hunter  v.  Lawrence,  11 
Gratt.  Ill,  1.33;  Field  v.  Schieffelin,  7 
John.  Ch.  150,  154;  Herfell  v.  Bogert, 
9  Pai.  52,  57;  Clark  v.  Blackington,  110 
Mass.  3(59,  374  pt  spq. ;  Gray  v.  Arniistead, 
6  Ired.  Eq  74,  77  ;  Bradsliaw  v.  Simpson, 
6  Ired.  Eq.  243,  246  ;  Crooker  v.  Jewell, 
31  Me.  30(!,  813  ;  Carter  v.  National  Bank, 
71  Me.  448;  Ladd  r.  Wiggm,  35  N.  H. 
421,  430 ;  Overfield  v.  Bullitt,  1  Mo.  749  ; 
Beattie  v.  Abercrombie,  18  Ala.  9,  18; 
Hadley  v.  Kendrick,  10  Lea,  525 ;  Mar- 
shall Coimty  V.  Ilanna,  57  Iowa,  372,  375  ; 
Kogers  v.  Zook,  86  Ind.  2)57,  242. 

«  3  Kedf.  on  Wills,  130,  pi.  1  ;  Schoul. 
Ex.  &  Adm.  §  219  ;  Mead  v.  Byington,  10 
Vt.  IIG,  122;  Beecheri'.  Buckingiiam,  18 
Conn.  110,  120;  Neale  v.  Ilagtlirop,  3 
Bland  Ch.  551,  5G3;  Lappin  u.  Mumford, 
14  Kans.  9,  15. 


388  EXECUTORS    AND    ADMINISTRATORS.  5  176 

not  having  ready  money  of  the  decedent,  or  for  any  other  good 
reason,  shall  pay  a  debt  of  the  decedent  with  his  own  money,  he 
may  elect  to  take  any  specific  chattel  as  compensation,  and,  if  it 
be  not  more  than  adequate,  it  shall  by  such  election  become  his 
own.  And  it  has  been  held  that,  if  thb  debt  due  him  by  the  tes- 
tator amount  to  the  full  value  of  all  the  effects  in  the  executor's 
hands,  there  is  a  complete  transmutation  of  the  property  in  favor 
of  the  executor  by  the  mere  act  and  operation  of  law.^  But  we 
shall  see  later  on,  that  the  doctrine  of  retainer  is  abolished,  and 
the  rights  and  duties  of  executors  and  administrators  with  respect 
to  the  sale  of  the  assets  very  considerably  modified  in  most  of 
the  American  States.'-^ 

§  176.  other  Methods  of  Conversion.  —  There  are  other  methods 
and  ways  also  in  which  the  property  which  goes  to  the  executor 
niirht  in  outer  ov  administrator  in  auter  droit  may  become  his  in  his 
fo  ric'hn?r'*^*^  ^^^  right.  Ready  money  left  by  the  decedent  becomes 
2)roprio.  j-jjg  jjg  soon  as  it  comes  into  his  hands,  and  he  is  re- 

sponsible to  the  estate  for  its  value  ;  for  when  it  is  intermixed 
with  his  own  money,  it  cannot  be  distinguished  therefrom  so  as 
to  enable  courts  to  treat  it  as  the  specific  property  of  the  estate.^ 
So  the  executor  or  administrator  may,  as  well  as  any  other  per- 
son, buy  goods  of  the  decedent  sold  under  a  fieri  facias,  and  when 
he  does  so,  the  property  which  was  vested  in  him  as  personal 
representative  becomes  his  in  jure  projorio.^  Where,  in  the  set- 
tlement of  an  estate,  the  distributees  refused  to  accept  a  note  and 
mortgage  which  the  administrator  had  taken  for  money  of  the 
estate  loaned,  and  he  paid  their  distributive  shares  in  cash  and 
other  securities,  the  administrator  thereby  becomes  the  absolute 
owner  of  such  note  and  mortgage.^  If  the  executor  or  adminis- 
trator among  the  goods  of  the  deceased  find  and  take  some  that 
were  not  his,  and  tlie  owner  recover  damages  for  them  in  trespass 
or  trover,  and  in  all  similar  cases,  the  goods  become  the  property 
of  the  trespasser,  for  he  has  paid  for  them.*^     He  may  make  an 

1  Wms.  Ex.  [646]  et  seq.,  with  English  as   to   doctrine    of  retainer,   post,   §    377 

authorities.     So  in  tlie  case  of  a  lease  of  et  seq. 

the  testator   devolved    on  the   executor,  ^  Post,  §§  377,  378  ;  see  also,  as  to  the 

such  profits  only  as  exceed   the  yearly  sale  of  the  personal  property,  §§  329  e<  sp^. 

value   shall  be  assets  ;   it  therefore   fol-  ^  Wms.  Ex.   [646|  ;  3  Redf.  on  Wills. 

lows  that,  if  the  executor   pay  the  rent  130,  pi.  2  a. 


out  of  his  own  purse,  the  profits  to  the  *  Wms.  Ex. 

same  amount  shall  be  his  :  Wentw.  Ex.  ^  Blakely  v.  Carter,  70  Wis.  540. 

c.  7,  p.  200,  14th  ed.;   Toller,  239.     See,  ^  Wras.  Ex.  1648]. 


§  177     PROPERTY  IN  AUTER  DROIT  AND  IN  JURE  PROPlilO.       389 

under-lease  of  a  term  of  years  uf  the  deceased,  rendering  rent  to 
himself,  his  executors,  etc. ;  and  although  he  has  the  term  wholly 
in  right  of  the  testator  or  intestate,  yet,  having  power  to  dispose 
of  the  whole,  by  making  a  lease  of  a  part  he  appropriates  that  to 
himself  and  divides  it  from  the  rest,  and  thus  has  the  rent  in  his 
own  right ;  and  if  he  dies,  the  rent  will  be  payable  to  his  personal 
representatives  and  not  to  the  administrator  de  bonis  non  of  the 
original  decedent.^  So  an  executor  who  is  also  a  legatee  may  by 
assenting  to  his  own  legacy  vest  the  thing  bequeathed  in  himself 
as  legatee,  and  such  assent  may  be  express  or  imf)lied  ;^  and  an 
administrator  who  is  also  a  distributee  may  acquire  a  legal  title 
in  his  own  right  to  goods  of  the  deceased,  by  appropriating  them 
to  himself  as  his  own  share.^  So  where  an  executrix  used  the 
goods  of  her  testator  as  her  own,  and  afterwards  married,  and 
then  treated  them  as  the  property  of  her  husband,  it  was  held 
that  she  could  not  be  allowed  to  object  to  their  being  taken  in 
execution  for  her  husband's  debt.^  And  after  a  lapse  of  six  or 
seven  years  equity  will  not  restrain  by  injunction  a  creditor  of  an 
executor  from  taking  in  execution  property  of  the  testator  which 
is  assets  in  equity.^  But  Lord  Tentcrden  held  that  the  use  of  the 
goods  of  an  intestate  by  the  administrator  for  three  months  Avas 
not  sufficient  to  raise  the  presumption  that  they  were  the  admin- 
istrator's property.^  The  possession  and  retention  of  a  bequest 
by  a  legatee  for  some  considerable  time,  without  objection  by  the 
executor,  will  be  conclusive  that  there  had  been  an  assents 

§  177.   Property  in  Auter  Droit  distinguished  from  Property  in  Jure 
Proprio.  — Both  English  and  American  text  writers  call  attention 
to  the  difficulty  of  ascertaining  when  ownership  in  the  pij^puif^.  „£ 
character  of   executor   or  administrator  ceases,  and  distinijuishinff 

.  when  property 

ownership  independent  of  that  character  commences.^  is  held  in  autlr 
Thus  it  was  formerly  held,  as  Williams  points  out,^  injure  proprio 
that  in  respect  to  land  no  merger  can  take  place  of  ^^  ^o'"'"""  i''^^- 

1  Boyd  V.  Sloan,  2  Bailey,  311,  312  ;  5  Ray  v.  Ray,  Coop.  Ch.  Cas.  2G4. 

3  Redf.  on  Wills,  131,  pi.  2  a.  6  Gaskell  r.  Marshall,  1  Mood.  &  Rob. 

2  Chester  v.  Greer,  5  Humph.  26;  but  132,  in  which  the  judge,  upon  Quick  r. 
such  assent  will  not  be  presumed  in  the  Staines,  supra,  being  cited,  observed  th.nt 
absence  of  acts  and  declarations  conducing  tlie  marriage  in  that  case  made  all  tlie 
to  show  an  assent :  Murpliree  v.  Singleton,  difference. 

37  Ala.  412,  416.    Post,  §  453,  on  execu-  '  Hall  v.  Hall,  27  Miss.  458,  400;  see 

tor's  assent.  post,  §  453,  on  executor's  assent. 

3  Parke,  B.,  in  Elliott  i-.  Kemp,  7  M.  ^  Wms.  Ex.  [643J  ;  3  Redf.  on  Wills. 
&  W.  306,  31.3.  129. 

4  Quick  V.  Staines,  1  Bos.  &  Pull.  293.  »  Wms.  Ex.  [610]  et  seq. 


390  EXECUTORS   AND   ADMINISTRATORS.  §  177 

the  estate  held  by  a  man  as  executor  in  that  which  he  hold:^  in 
his  own  right;!  )j„t  a  distinguished  author 2  urges  this  distinction, 
viz.  that   when  either  of  the  two  estates  is  an  accession  to  the 
other  by  act  of  law,  there  will  not  be  any  merger,  but  that  where 
the  accession  is  hy  act,  of  the  party,  the  lesser  estate  will  merge. 
Although  opposed  to  the  views  of  earlier  lawyers,-^  this  distinction 
seems  to  be  supported  by  the  current  of  authorities.'*     It  is  also 
to  be  observed  that  a  person  originally  entitled  to  a  term  or  to 
an  estate  of  freehold  as  executor  or  administrator  may  in  process 
of  time  become  the  owner  in  l)is  own  right.     Thus,  an  executor 
who  is  also  residuary  legatee,  having  jierformed  the  purposes  of 
the  will,  holds  the  estate  as  legatee ;  so  where  he  pays  money  of 
his  own  to  the  value  of  the  term  in  discharge  of  the  testator's 
debts,  and  with  an  intention  of  appropriating  the  term  to  his  own 
use  in  lieu  of  the  money,  he  holds  in  his  own  right ;  and  so  does 
an  administrator  who  is  entitled  to  the  whole  beneficial  ownership 
of  the  intestate's  property,  or  procures  a  discharge  from  those 
who  are  to  share  that  property  with  him,  and  all  the  debts  of  the 
intestate  are  paid.     Under  these  and  the  like  circumstances  the 
executor  or  administrator  will  have  the  estate  in  his  own  right, 
and  when  he  has  the  estate  in  his  own  right  it  will  be  subject  to 
mero-er.'    In  America,  however,  the  difficulties  attend- 

Thi'^  difficulty  »  .  ^    ,,  ,  ^        •  i  •    i 

siishtd-  in  ing  the  ascertainment  of  the  character  m  which  prop- 
Anienca.  ^^^^  .^  ^^^^^  ^^  Gxccutors  and  administrators,  whether 

in  aider  droit  or  in  jure  proprio,  are  greatly  diminished  by  statu- 
tory provisions  requiring  the  distribution  of  assets  to  be  made 
under  order  of  the  probate  court,  or  at  least  to  be  reported  in  the 
annual  or  final  settlements  made  in  court,  xind  since  the  owner- 
ship is  in  the  first  place  always  in  auter  droit,  it  is  incumbent 
upon  any  one  who  would  attach  a  right  to  the  assets  derived  from 
or  through  the  executor  or  administrator  personally,  to  show  that 
the  original  title  has  been  changed,  and  that  he  holds  the  property 
jure  propria,  which  may  be  done  by  proving  a  sale,  conversion,  or 
merger  in  any  of  the  methods  by  which  a  personal  representative 
may  divest  the  title  of  his  testator  or  intestate. 

1  2  Bla.  Comni.  177 ;  Jones  v.  Davies,  clearer,"  says  the  latter,  "  than   that  a 
5  H.  &  N.  76(5.  term    which    is  taken    nlieno   jure    is   not 

2  Preston   on  Conveyancing,  vol.  iii.  merger]  in  a  reversion  acquired  sito  jure." 
p.  27:i  et  seq.  (3d  ed.,  1829).  *  Wnis.  Ex.  |641|. 

3  Lord  Holt,  in  Gage  i\  Acton,  1  Salk.  &  Wnis.  Ex.  1642|  ;  3  Preston  on  Conv. 
3-2.5,  326.  and  Lord   Kenyon,  in  Webb  v.  310,  311. 

Russell,  3  T.  R.  393,  401.     "Nothing  is 


§   177       PROPERTY  IN  AUTER  DROIT  AND  IN  JURE  PROPRIO.       391 

All  executor  or  administrator  having  assets,  being  also  the 
guardian  of  a  legatee  or  distributee,  may  transfer  the  distributive 
share  to  himself  as  guardian ;  but  to  do  so,  and  thus  Traasfer  of 
hx  his  liability  m  the  new  capacity,  some  distinct  act  j,,  ..ue  Japacity 
or  declaration  is  necessary.^  Nor  can  there  be  a  Sj;  l;;;;;;','!;^ 
transfer  of  a  more  naked  liability,  as,  for  instance,  the  capacity, 
debt  owing  to  the  estate  by  an  insolvent  fiduciary .^  So,  if  a  trustee 
must  give  bond,  an  executor  who  is  also  made  trustee  will  remain 
liable  as  executor  until  he  has  given  bond  as  trustee ;  ^  and  if  a 
legacy  is  given  to  one  qua  executor,  he  remains  liable  as  exec- 
utor, although  he  take  credit  therefor  as  legatee^  So  a  special 
administrator  is  lial)lc  for  money  belonging  to  the  estate  received 
by  him  as  agent  of  a  previous  administratot/^  And  an  adminis- 
trator who  is  also  guardian,  who  has  completed  the  administra- 
tion and  therefore  has  no  further  use  for  assets,  is  presumed  to 
hold  the  property  as  guardian ;  ^  and,  in  general,  where  a  man 
holds  money  in  several  capacities,  the  law  will  attach  to  him  lia- 
bility in  that  capacity  in  which  of  right  it  ought  to  be  held  ;  ^  as 
where  a  man  in  his  own  person  unites,  by  operation  of  law,  the 
character  of  debtor  and  creditor.^  See  on  this  point  the  subject 
of  debts  by  the  executor  or  administrator  to  the  deceased.^ 

1  Smith  V.  Gregory,  2G  Gratt.  248,  257;  7  Kirby  v.  StatP,  51  Md.  383,  392,  cit- 
Miller  y.  Congdon,  14  Gray,  114.  ing    many     Maryland     cases;     State    v. 

2  Gilmer  v.  Baker,  24  W.  Va.  72,  92.  Clieston,  51  Md.  352,  876  ;  Citizens'  Bank 

3  Prior  V.  Talbot,  10  Cush.  1 ;  Dorr  v.  v.  Sliarp,  53  Md.  521,  527. 
Wainwright,  13  Pick.  328,  331 ;  Probate  s  Schnell  v.  Schroder,  Bail.  Eq.  .384 
Court  V.  Hazard,  13  11.  I.  1,  2 ;  Hall  o.  Knicks  r.  Powell,  2  Strobh.  Eq.  196,  206 
Cusliing,  9  Pick.  395,  409.  Griffin  i'.  Bonhani,  9  Rich.  Eq.   71,   77 

*  Probate   Court  v.  Angel!,   14  R.   I.  Jacobs  v.  Woodside,  6  S.  C.  490 ;  Todd  v. 

495,  499.  Davenport,  22  S.  C.  147  ;  Smith  v.  Greg- 

5  Gottsberger  v.  Taylor,  19  N.  Y.  150.  ory,  26  GraU.  248,  260. 

6  United  States  v.  May,  4  Mackey,  4,  7.  «  Pust,  §  311. 


392  SPECIAL   AND   QUALIFIED   ADMINISTRATORS.  §  178 


CHAPTER   XIX. 

OP   SPECIAL   AND   QUALIFIED    ADMINISTRATORS. 

§  178.  Administrators  cum  Testamento  annexo.  —  It  has  been 
shown  that  the  chief  distinction  between  an  executor  and  an 
Distinction  be-  administrator  lies  in  the  source  of  their  appointment, 
irjadminis-"'  ^ud  in  the  fact  that  the  one  disposes  of  the  estate 
trator  cum         accordinsT  to  the  directions  of  the  testator,  while  the 

testamento  " 

annexo.  other  is  governed  in  this  respect  by  the  geijeral  law.^ 

The  distinction  is  still  fainter  in  cases  where  a  will  exists,  and, 
from  any  cause,  there  is  no  executor.  In  such  case  the  probate 
court  designates  a  person  to  carry  out,  or  execute,  the  will,  which 
is  then  annexed  to  and  becomes  part  of  his  letters ;  from  which 
circumstance  he  is  known  as  administrator  (not  executor,  because 
not  nominated  by  the  testator)  cum  testamento  annexo,  or  admin- 
istrator with  the  will  annexed.  Since  it  is  his  duty  to  dispose  of 
the  property  of  the  testator  in  accordance  with  the  provisions  of 
the  will,  it  is  obvious  that  his  powers  can  differ  but  slightly  from 
those  of  an  executor.  Indeed,  the  difference  sometimes  insisted 
upon  —  that  an  administrator  cum  testamento  annexo  cannot  exe- 
cute such  powers  conferred  by  the  testator  upon  the  executor  as 
may  be  beyond  the  ordinary  functions  of  an  executor — is  not  in 
reality  a  difference  between  the  administrator  and  executor  at  all, 
because  powers  beyond  the  ordinary  functions  of  executors  are  to 
that  extent  a  testamentary  trust,  and  vest  in  him  as  such  trustee, 
not  because  he  is  executor,  but  in  addition  to  and  independent  of 
his  office  as  such.^ 

Since  all  the  duties  of  an  executor,  pertaining  to  his  office  as 
such,  devolve  to  the  administrator  with  the  will  annexed,^  the 

1  Ante,  §  171.  v.  Hester,  2  Ired.  Eq.  830,  339 ;  Jackson 

2  Shaw  V.  McCameron,  11  S.  &  R  252,  v.  Jeffries,  1  A.  K.  Marsh.  88 ;  King  v. 
255.  Talbert,  .36  Miss.  367,  373 ;  Olwine's  Ap- 

3  Blake  v.  Dexter,  12  Cush.  559,  569 ;  peal,  4  W.  &  S.  492 ;  Lucas  v.  Price,  4 
Rnttrifk  v.  King,  7  Met.  (Mass.)  20 ;  VVil-  Ala.  679,  683. 

son's  Estate,  2  Pa.  St.  325,  329;  Hester 


§  179  ADMINISTRATORS   DK   BONIS   NON.  393 

latter  possesses,  oenerally,  the  same  powers,  is  bound  „  ,    . 

•^  '  '  Powers,  duties 

by  the  same  duties,  and  sultject  to  the  same  liabilities  and  liabilities 
as  the  former,!  whether  appointed  originally,  or  upon  u,rc.  t.a'.fre'n- 
thc  death,  removal,  or  resignation  of  the  exeeutor;-  ITot^ an""'^^^^ 
but  the  powers  and  duties  not  necessarily  connected  ^^'''^"""■• 
with  the  functions  of  an  executor  devolve  upon  the  administrator 
with  the  will  annexed  only  when  it  appears  clearly  from  the  will 
that  the  testator  so  intended  ;3  as  where,  for  instance,  he  directed 
an  act  to  be  done  at  all  events,  without  leaving  any  discretion  to 
the  executor.* 

The  power  of  the  administrator  with  the  will  annexed  is  not, 
generally,  limited  to  the  administration  of  the  estate  ,,         ,  , 

,.  1      r  1  -nil  Power  of  ad- 

disposed  of  by  the  will,  although  it  has  in  some  cases  ministrator 
been  held  so,^  but  extends  to  the  whole   of  the  de-  t'^o  aiUs^sets  of'^ 
cedent's   estate,*^   unless   the   testator   has   otherwise  Itute.''^ 
directed.' 

The  power  to  sell  lands  granted  to  executors  who  refuse  to 
qualify,  or  are  removed  or  die,  is  in  most  States  regulated  by 
statute,  and  will  be  further  considered  in  connection  with  the  sub- 
ject of  the  management  of  real  estate.^ 

§  179.   Administrators  de  Bonis  non.  —  Upon  the  death,  removal, 
or  resignation  of  a  sole  executor  or  administrator,  or  of  all  of 
several  joint  executors  or  administrators,  before  the  Admini...trator 
estate  has  been  fully  administered,  it  becomes  neces-  mifiisters'the'^' 
sary  to  appoint  a  successor,  to  the  end  that  the  admin-  ?'**'^'*  remain- 

....  ,  inn/-,  '"«  unadmm- 

istration  may  be  completed.^    Such  an  officer  is  known  istered. 

1  Kidwell  V.  Brummagim,  82  Cal.  436,  annexo  should  also  take  a  grant  of  admin- 
439,  citing  Jackson  v.  Ferris,  15  Jolin.  ;J40,     istration  et  ceterorum. 

347;  Bowers  v.  Emerson,  14  Barb.  652;  «  Ex  parte  Brown,  2  Bradf.  22  ;  Lan- 

Farwell  r.  Jacobs,  4  Mass.  G34,  636.  ders  v.  Stone,  45  Ind.  404 

2  Ex  parte  Brown,  2  Bradf.  22.  "  3  Redf.    on    Wills,  9G,   pi.  2,  citing 

3  Ingle  V.  Jones,  9  Wall.  486,  498  ;  Hays  v.  Jackson,  6  Mass.  149,  in  which 
Knight  V.  Loomis,  30  Me.  204  ;  Conklin  Parsons,  C.  J.,  says  that  the  correct 
I'.  Egerton,  21  Wend.  430;  Tainter  v.  practice  in  America  is  that  executors  ad- 
Clark,  13  Met.  220,  226;  Wills  r.  Cowper,  minister  undivided  estate  ex  offirio,  with- 
2  Oh.  312,  316;  Moody  r.  Vandyke,  4  out  a  letter  of  administration.  "  The  same 
Bin.  31  ;  Dunning  v.  Ocean  Bank,  61  doctrine  is  held  in  Landers  r.  Stone  45 
N.  Y.  497,  501.  I,,,].  404,  407  ;    Venable  v.  Mitchell,'  29 

*  King  V.  Talbert,  36  Miss.  367,  373.  Ga.  566. 

5  Harper  v.   Smith,  9  Ga.   461  ;  Ash-  «  Post,  §  339  et  seq. 

burn  V.  Ashhurn,  16  Ga.  213,  216;  Dean  9  Scott  v.  Fox,  14  Md  .388,  394.     See 

V.  Biggers,  27  Ga.  73,  75.     These  Geor-  ;-o,./,  §  851,  on  the  succession'  of  admin- 

gia  cases  hold  that,  where  it  becomes  ne-  istrators. 
cessary,  the  administrator  cum  testamento 


394  SPECIAL   AND    QUALIFIED    ADMINISTilATORS.  §  179 

as  administrator  de  bonis  non  (^administratis),  —  administrator  of 
the  unadministcred  effects ;  or,  if  he  succeed  an  executor  or  an 
administrator  cum  testamento  annexo,  he  is  known  as  administra- 
tor de  bonis  non  cum  testamento  annexo,  —  administrator  with  the 
Distinction  in  will  anucxed  of  the  unadministcred  goods.  At  com- 
commoiHaw  ^^^o\\  law  thcrc  is  a  distinction  in  this  respect  between 
utors^and'^d-  Gxccutors  and  administrators,  growing  out  of  the  doc- 
ininii>tiators.  trine  that  an  executor's  executor  succeeds  to  the  estate 
of  the  deceased  executor's  testator,  but  not  the  deceased  execu- 
tor's administrator,  nor  does  a  deceased  administrator's  executor 
or  administrator  succeed  to  the  estate  of  the  original  intestate.^ 
This  distinction  disappears,  of  course,  with  the  rule  from  which 
it  springs,  and  now  exists  in  very  few  of  the  American  States  ;2 
where  it  is  not  recognized,  the  necessity  for  the  appointment  of  an 
administrator  de  bonis  non  is  the  same,  whether  it  was  an  execu- 
tor or  administrator  who  left  the  estate  unadministered.*^ 

An  estate  is  not  fully  administered  so  long  as  anything  remains 
to  be  done  to  vest  the  title  of  the  decedent's  estate  in  the  benefi- 
Unadmiiiis-  ciary,  whether  creditor,  next  of  kin,  legatee,  or  devisee, 
teied  estate.  whicli  no  ouc  but  an  executor  or  administrator  can 
lawfully  do  ;  such  as  paying  a  legacy,  or  distributing  the  effects 
or  assets,'*  although  the  assets  had  been  reduced  to  money ,^  pay- 
ing debts,^  or  the  like.  But  it  has  been  held  that  an  adminis- 
trator de  bonis  non  cannot  be  appointed  for  the  sole  purpose  of 
making  a  conveyance  which  the  original  administrator  ought  to 
have  made.'' 

The  administration  de  bonis  non  may  be  granted  after  any 
length  of  time;^  but  lapse  of  time  and  other  circumstances  may 

1  See,    as   to    the  authority  of  a  de-  uted  :  Brattle  v.  Converse,  1  Root,  174; 

ceased  executor's  executor  to  the  estate  Brattle  v.  Gustin,  1  Koot,  425 ;  Bancroft 

of  the  original  testator,  ;)os?,  §  350.  r.  Andrews,  6  Cush.  49.3,  494;    State  v, 

-  .3  Redf.  on  Wills,  74,  pi.   17 ;   post,  Farmer,  54  Mo.  4;:!9,  445  ;  or  jirosecuting 

§  350.  a  claim  instituted  by  tiie  removed  exec- 

•5  Taylor   v.  Brooks,   4  Dev.  &  B.   L.  utor  :  Hayward  r.  Place,  4  Dern.  487. 
189,  143  ;  Carroll  v.  Connet,  2  J.  J.  Marsh.  '  Grayson  v.  Weddle.  63  I.Io.  523,  539 ; 

195,  205.  Long  v.  Joplin   Mining  Co.,  68  Mo.  422, 

*  Alexander    v.    Stewart,   8    G.   &  J.  427. 
226,  244  ;  Hendricks  r.  Snodgrass,  Walk.  ^  Bancroft  v.  Andrews,  6  Cush.  493, 

(Miss.)  86;  Scott  v.  Crews,  72  Mo    261,  495,   citing   Kempton    v.    Swift.   2    Met. 

264;  University  v.  Hughes,  90  N.  C.  537.  (Mass.)   70,  in  which  the  second  admin- 

5  Donaldson  v.  liaborg,  26  Md.  312,  istration  was  granted  more  than  thirty 
326;  De  Valengin  v.  Duffy,  14  Pet.  282,  years  after  the  tirst:  Holmes,  Petitioner, 
291.  33  Me.  677. 

6  Although  the  estate  was  all  distrib- 


§  180  PUBLIC    ADMINISTRATORS.  395 

raise  a  presumption  tliat  all  debts  a";ainst  an  estate  ^. 

'  '       .  "  Time  within 

arc  barred   or    j)aid,  and   tliat  the   reniainin<^  assets  which  an  ad- 

II  J       ii        1     •         •  1-1  ii  1      •     •    i.      i.-  niiiiistrator 

belong-  to  the  heirs,  in  which  case  the  administration  r/.  6.  «.  may 
cannot  be  reopened  by  the  api)ointment  of  an  adminis-    "^ 'M'i>'""tet . 
trator   de   bonis  tton.^     If  nothing   remains   to   be   done   to   com- 
plete administration,  the  grant  of  letters  de  bonis  non  is  merely 
nugatory."'^ 

Since  there  can  be  but  one  valid  administration  in  the  same 
State  of  the  same  succession  at  the  same  time,  the  appointment 
of  an  administrator  de  bonis  non  before  the  death,  Vacancy  in  the 
removal,  or  resignation  of  the  executor  or  original  iKli!Ir"aamil°i"- 
administrator  is  obviouslv   a  nullity  ;3   and  this  ap-  {'•='•"'•"'•*•«• 

•'    '  I       call  be  ap- 

plies with  the  same  force  to  the  case  of  several  joint  pointed. 

executors  or  administrators,  so  long  as  one  of  them  remains 
in  office,  because  the  grant  of  administration  is  an  entirety,  and 
the  authority  survives  to  the  last  one.*  But  the  mere  informal- 
ity of  omitting  the  words  de  bonis  non  in  the  aj)pointment  of  an 
administrator  to  succeed  a  general  administrator  who  had  died,^ 
or  of  omitting  to  enter  the  order  removing  the  administrator, 
when  the  facts  necessary  to  sustain  such  order  are  recited  in  con- 
nection with  the  grant  of  administration  de  bonis  non,  does  not 
render  such  appointment  void.*^  See  on  this  subject  the  chap- 
ter on  the  privity  between  executors  and  administrators  of  the 
same  estate.'' 

§  180.  Public  Administrators.  —  The  public  administrator,  or 
administrator  general,  is  an  officer  authorized  by  the  statutes  of 
several  of  the  States  to  administer  the  estates  of  per- 

1.  ..  .,  ,.  -Ill      When  public 

sons  dying  mtestate  without  relatives  entitled  to  ad-  admini-trator 
minister,^  or  where  those  entitled  refuse  to  do  so.     In  dmrire  of 
some  of  the  States  this  officer  is  elected  by  the  people,  ^*"*^'^*- 
and  holds  office  for  a  number  of  years ;  ^  in  others  he  is  appointed 

1  Murpliy  V.  Menard,  14  Tex.  62,  G7.  ■*  Lewis  v.  Brooks,  0  Yerjr.  167  ;  State 

2  Wilfoxon  ('.  Reese,  63  Md.  542,  545.  v.  Green,  65  Mo.  5"J8,  530,  citint;  State  v. 

3  Munroe  v.   People,  102  III.  406,  409;  Kucker,  59  Mo.  24.     See  post,  §346. 
Ranibo  v.  Wyatt,  -32  Ala.  SW,  3G5  ;  Mat-  &  Moselin  v.  Martin.  37  Ala.  216,  219; 
thews  V.  Doiithitt,  27  Ala.  273  ;  Watkins  Steen  v.   Bennett,  24  Vt.  303 ;  Bailey  v. 
V.  Adams,  32  Miss.  333,  335;  Petigru  c.  Scott,  13  Wis.  618. 

Fergvison,   6    Rich.  Eq.  378;    Grande  r.  6  Ragland  c.  Kinp,  37  Ala.  80 ;  Russell 

Ciiaves,  15  Tex.  550;  Hamilton's  Estate,  r.  Erwin,  41  Ala.  292. 

34  Cal.  464  ;    Creatli  v.  Brent,   3   Dana,  '  Post,  §  351  et  seq. 

129.     And  in  Indiana  can  only  be  granted  ^  Abh.  L.  Diet.  "  Administer." 

in  case  of  vacancy  before  final  settlement :  ^  In  California,  Missouri,  Nevada,  and 

Croxton  v.  Renner,  103  Ind.  223.  New  York. 


396  SPECIAL   AND    QUALIFIED    ADMINISTRATORS.  §  180 

by  the  governor,^  or  by  the  court  having  probate  jurisdiction,^  and 
in  North  Carolina  by  the  clerk  of  the  Supreme  Court.  In  Ala- 
bama such  officer  is  appointed  for  the  county  of  Mobile  only;^  but 
the  probate  court  may  compel  the  sheriff  or  coroner  to  administer, 
and  on  application  of  a  creditor  the  probate  judge  refusing  to 
make  such  an  order  may  himself  be  compelled  by  mandamus  to  do 
so.*  So,  in  Arkansas^  and  Virginia,^  sheriffs  are  ex  officio  public 
administrators,  and  the  authority  of  probate  courts  to  order  the 
sheriff  to  take  charge  of  an  estate  without  reciting  the  reason 
therefor  is  unquestioned.^  In  Georgia  the  ordinary  may  compel 
the  clerk  of  the  Superior  Court  to  perform  the  duties  of  admin- 
istrator, if  no  one  else  can  be  found  to  apply  for  letters.^  When 
administration  is  committed  to  any  such  officer,  he  is  liable  on  his 
official  bond  for  its  faithful  performance  ;  ^  in  Arkansas  it  is  held 
that  the  sureties  on  the  sheriff's  bond  are  liable,  although  a  special 
administration  bond  was  given  in  each  estate  taken  charge  of  as 
public  administrator  ;  ^^  but  it  is  ruled  differently  in  other  States.^^ 
In  Georgia  the  ordinary  may  order  an  estate  to  be  administered 
by  the  clerk  without  bond,  if  no  one  can  be  found  who  will  give 
bond. ^2  The  authority  of  these  officers  as  administrators  does  not 
usually  cease  with  their  official  terra,  but  continues  until  the  estate 
is  fully  administered  ;  ^^  but  in  South  Carolina  the  authority  of  a 
commissioner  in  equity  suing  out  letters  of  administration  on  a 
derelict  estate  is  held  to  cease  with  his  office  as  commissioner, 
and  his  successor  must  sue  out  letters  de  bonis  non}^ 

In  most  States  the  authority   of  the  public  administrator,  or 

1  Colorado,  Illinois,  Maine,  and  Massa-  low  or  reject  claims  against  the  estate 
chusetts.  of  a  decedent  until  he  has  assumed  the 

2  Kentucky,    Mississippi,   Tennessee,  charge  of  the  assets,  or  been  ordered  to 
and  Wisconsin.  assume   the   administration  by  the   pro- 

3  It  is  there  held  that  an  order  by  the  bate  court :   Williamson   v.  Turbush,  31 
probate  court  committing   an   estate  to  Ark.  531),  541. 

the  cliarge  of  the  general  administrator  ^  Johnston  v.  Tatum,  20  Ga.  775. 

is  not  void  for  the  omission  to  recite  the  ^  Scarce   v.   Page,   12   B.   Mon.   311 ; 

due  appointment  of   the  general  admin-  Cocke  v.  Finley,  29  Miss.  127. 

istrator:  Russell  v.  Ervvin,  41  Ala.  292.  ^^  Tlie  court  so  concluded  "  with  much 

*  Brennan  v.  Harris,  20  Ala.  185.    The  hesitation  "  :  State  v.  Watts,  23  Ark.  304, 

grant  of  letters  of  administration  to  the  309. 

sheriff   or   coronor   virtute  officii  expires  n  McNeil  v.  Smith,  55  Ga.  313. 

with  his  term  :  Landford  v.  Dunklin,  71  12  Code,  1882,  §  2496. 

Ala.  594,  609.  is  Beale  i'.  Hall,  22  Ga.  431 ;  Russell  v. 

6  Dig.  1884,  §§  224-2.31.  Erwin,  41  Ala.  292;  Rogers  v.  Hoberlein, 

6  Hutcheson^-.  Priddy,  12  Gratt.  8.5,87.  11   Gal.   120;   Warren  v.  Carter,  92  Mo. 

7  State   V.  Watts,   23   Ark.   304,  312.  288. 

But   the  sheriff  has  no  authority  to  al-         "  Levi  v.  Huggins,  14  Rich.  166. 


§  180  PUBLIC    ADMINISTRATORS.  397 

administrator  general,  depends  upon  aj)pointmcnt  by,^  or  letters 
obtained  from,  the  probate  court,-  upon  the  application  of  some 
party  interested  ;^  and  in  some  States  it  is  made  his  duty  to  take 
into  custody  and  protect  against  loss  and  waste  any  estate  not 
otlierwise  administered,  until  thci-c  may  be  a  regular  appointment 
of  some  person  having  preference  under  the  law.*  In  Missouri  ^ 
and  New  York,*^  however,  the  public  administrator  takes  charge  of 
estates  under  circumstances  pointed  out  by  the  statute,  without 
order  of  the  probate  court  or  surrogate ;  but  he  may  be  ordered 
to  take  charge  of  other  estates  in  their  discretion. 

In  Missouri  the  public  administrator  is  required  to  file  notice 
in  the  probate  court  whenever  he  takes  charge  of  an  estate ;  but 
the  validity  of  his  administration  does  not  depend  upon  giving 
such  notice,"  nor  can  his  authority  be  questioned  collaterally.^ 
The  probate  court  may  direct  him  to  take  charge  of  an  estate  for 
any  good  cause,  "  to  prevent  its  being  injured,  wasted,  purloined, 
or  lost";^  the  partnership  estate  of  a  deceased  partner  forms  no 
exception. ^0  But  it  is  held  that  he  has  no  authority  to  bring  suit 
against  a  foreign  insurance  company,  doing  business  in  Missouri, 
upon  a  policy  of  insurance  not  made,  nor  to  be  executed,  in  Mis- 
souri, upon  the  life  of  a  citizen  of  another  State,  who  neither 
resided,  died,  nor  left  property  in  Missouri  ;^^  nor  to  maintain  an 
action  for  assets  of  an  estate  which  he  has  unlawfully  taken 
charge  of.^^     His  action  in  taking  charge  of  an  estate  without  the 

1  A   dire(!tion    to   the    slieriff  to  take  tration  ;  and  the  certificate  of  the  probate 

charge   of   the   estate    of  "  Robert   W."  judge  that  he  is  public  administrator  is 

does  not  autliorize  him  to  take  charge  of  not  competent  proof;  it  must  be  sliown 

the   estate  of  "  Henry  W."  :  Woodyard  by  a  copy  of  the  record  of  appointment 

V.  Threlkeld,  1  A.  K.  Marsh.  10;  Morse  as    public    administrator:     Littleton    v. 

V.   Griffith,  25  La.  An    213  ;    Wilson    v.  Christy,  11  Mo.  390,  393. 

Dibble,  10  Fla.  782,  784,  citing  Davis  v.  »  This   statute   authorizes  the  public 

Simler,  14  Fla.  438.  administrator  to  take  charge  of  any  es- 

-  Thomas  v.  Adnms,  10  III.  319;  Es-  tate   under   order  of  the   probate   court 

tate  of  Hamilton,  34  Cal  464.  upon  which   no  administration    has   pre- 

3  Unknown    Heirs    v.    Baker,    23    111.  viously  been  granted:  CaHahan  v.  Gris- 

484  ;  Succession  of  Miller,  27  La.  An.  574.  wold,  9  Mo.  784. 

*  Beckett  v.  Selover,  7  Cal.  215.  i^  Headlee  v.  Cloud,  51  Mo.  301. 

5  Rev.  St.  1879,  §  306.  "  Insurance    Company   v.    Lewis,    97 

6  3  Banks  &  Bro.,  pp.  2309,  2319.  U.  S.  682. 

'  Adams  v.  Larrimore,  51  Mo.  130, 131.  i-  Lewis  v.  McCabe,  73  Mo.  307.  The 
8  Wetzell  V.  Waters,  18  Mo.  39G.  But  principle  annoimced  in  this  case  was  re- 
proof of  the  filing  of  the  notice  by  a  pudiated  by  two  of  the  judges,  who  in 
person  not  shown  to  be  public  adminis-  their  dissenting  opinion  call  attention  to 
trator  is  not  sufficient  to  show  that  such  the  case  of  Wetzell  v.  Waters,  IS  Mo. 
person  is  legally  in  charge  of  the  adminis-  396  (cited  ubi  supra),  with   the  doctrine 


398  SPECIAL    AND    QUALIFIED    ADMINISTRATORS.  §  180 

order  of  the  probate  court  is  not  final,  but  may  be  annulled  by 
the  probate  court,  if  in  its  opinion  the  facts  did  not  warrant  the 
administration  by  the  public  administrator.^  A  Michigan  case 
intimates  that  the  validity  of  the  acts  of  a  public  administrator 
having  an  estate  in  charge  without  appointment  by  the  probate 
court,  is  collaterally  assailable.^ 

In  New  York  there  is  a  distinction  between  the  powers  of  the 
public  administrators  in  the  city  of  New  York,  and  of  those  of 
the  interior  counties.  In  New  York  City  the  public  administrator 
is  made  the  head  of  a  bureau  in  the  law  department,  and  is  to  be 
appointed  by  the  corporation  counsel.^  He  takes  charge  "  in  right 
of  his  office  "  of  the  estates  of  persons  dying  intestate  within  the 
State  or  elsewhere  having  property  in  the  city  or  county  of  New 
York,  or  when  such  property  shall  arrive  there  after  the  death  of 
such  person,  or  having  effects  at  the  quarantine  of  said  city.* 
Outside  of  the  city  of  New  York,  the  several  county  treasurers 
are  bound,  virtute  officii.,  to  accept  appointment  as  administrators 
made  by  the  surrogates,  to  give  bond,  (fcc.^  The  effects  of  foreign- 
ers dying  intestate  are  taken  charge  of  by  the  commissioners  of 
emigration  of  the  city  of  New  York  until  such  time  as  their  au- 
thority may  be  superseded  by  letters  regularly  granted ;  these 
commissioners  may  also  appropriate  to  the  use  of  any  minor  child 
its  distributive  share  of  the  estate  in  their  charge.^ 

The  circumstances  under  which  a  public  administrator  is  au- 
thorized to  take  charge  of  an  estate  depend,  of  course,  wholly 
upon  the  respective  statutes.  It  has  already  been  mentioned,  that 
in  some  of  the  States  it  is  his  duty  to  take  charge  of  estates,  in 
certain  contingencies,  without  order  or  letters  from  the  probate 
court;"  and  also,  that  where  he  has  such  authority  but  does  not 

of  which  it  conflicts.     It  seems  to  militate  ^  Per   Cooley,  C.  J.,  in    Reynolds   v. 

against  the  case  of  Headlee  v.  Cloud  also,  McMullen,    55    Mich.     568,    673.      The 

in  which  it  is  announced  that  the  public  autliority    relied     on    (Illinois    Railroad 

administrator  cannot  be  divested  of  an  Co.   v.  Cragin,  71  111.    177)  holds  letters 

administration  in  a  collateral  proceeding?,  granted    by  a  clerk,   and   not   approved 

but  only  on  application  to  the  probate  by  the   court,  to  be  impeachable  collat- 

court :  51  Mo.  302.  eraily. 

1  McCabe  v.  Lewis,  76  Mo.  296,  301,  3  Laws,  1873,  eh.  335,  §  38. 

reversing    Court    of    Appeals.     Two    of  *  3  Banks  &  Bro.,  p.  2309. 

the   judges  dissent   from    this   principle,  ^  lb.,  p.  2319  et  seq. 

holding,  with  the  Court  of  Appeals,  that  ®  Ex  parte  Commissioners  of  Emigra- 

the  probate  court  iiad  no  power  to  con-  tion,  1  Bradf.  259. 

trol  the  public  administrator's  discretion  "  Supra,  p   397. 
in  taking  charge  of  estates. 


§  180  PUBLIC    ADMINISTRATORS.  399 

exercise  it,  he  may  bo  compelled  to  do  so  by  order  of  the  probate 
court.^  So  also,  although  the  public  administrator  assume  the 
charge  of  an  estate  without  order  or  authority  from  the  probate 
court,  exercising-  in  this  respect  a  co-ordinate  jurisdiction,  yet  the 
validity  of  his  act  in  so  doing  may  be  questioned  in  the  probate 
court,  and  his  authority  annulled  if  found  unwarranted  by  the  cir- 
cnmstances.2  ^i^^]  similarly  the  authority  of  the  public  adminis- 
trator may  be  revoked,  even  where  he  was  appointed  by  decree  of 
the  probate  court,  if  such  decree  was  improvidently  granted.-^ 

The  exercise  of  the  discretion  of  probate  courts,  under  the  stat- 
utes on  this  subject,  in  granting  letters  of  administration  to  pub- 
lic administrators,  or  ordering  them  to  take  charge  of  when  probate 
the  estates  of  deceased  persons,  is  not  always  with-  re"t  the'^pubnc 
out  difliculty.  It  has  been  held  that  the  right  of  the  ^;;;XSge 
public  adniinistrator  to  letters  is  confined  to  cases  of  of  an  estate, 
intestacy ;  in  estates  of  testates  the  court  may  exercise  its  dis- 
cretion.^ Where,  the  next  of  kin  being  disqualified,  the  grant  of 
letters  to  the  public  administrator,  or  to  another  person,  is  discre- 
tional, neither  the  expressed  desire  of  the  intestate,  nor  the  unan- 
imous recommendation  of  the  next  of  kin  have  any  legal  effect  to 
narrow  such  discretion  ;  ^  but  if  there  is  a  contest  between  a  cred- 
itor and  the  public  administrator,  other  creditors  will  be  heard, 
and  the  public  administrator  may  be  appointed  at  their  request.^ 
He  cannot,  however,  be  appointed  provisionally  until  the  contest 
for  the  administration  is  determined,  if  he  is  himself  one  of  the 
applicants.'^  It  was  held,  at  one  time,  that  the  claim  of  the  public 
administrator  was  superior  to  that  of  blood  relatives  who  are  not 
entitled  to  distribution ;  ^  but  this  decision  was  overruled  in  later 
cases,^  and  it  is  now  held  that  the  claim  of  one  next  of  kin, 
although  not  entitled  to  distrilnition,  is  superior  to  that  of  the 
public  administrator.^"^  And  whore,  in  case  of  disqualification  of 
the  next  of  kin,  the  public  administrator  is  entitled,  the  applica- 

1  Supra,  p.  307.  5  Estate    of    Morgan,    53    Cal.    243 ; 

2  Donaldson  v.  Lewi?,  7  Mo.  App.  403,      Estate  of  Kelly,  57  Cal.  81. 
405  ;   and  the  judgment  of    the  probate  ''  Doak's  Estate,  40  Cal.  57-3. 

court  in  such  case  may  be  appealed  from  :  '  Succession  of  Miller,  27  La.  An.  574. 

lb.,  p.  406.     See   also   cases  cited  sujira,  ^  Public    Administrator    v.    Peters,    1 

p.  397,  note  12,  and  p.  3U8,  note  1.  Bradf.  100. 

3  Varnell  v.  Loague,  9  Lea,  158,  161  ;  »  Lathrop  v.  Smith,  35  Barb.  04  ;  24 
Proctor  V.  Wanmaker,  1  Barb.  Ch.  302,  N.  Y.  417,  420. 

308,  citing  English  cases.  ^^  Butler  v.  Perrott,  1  Dem.  9. 

*  Nunan's  Estate,  Myr.  238. 


400  SPECIAL   AND   QUALIFIED    ADMINISTRATORS.  §  181 

tion  of  one  nearer  of  kin  than  any  person  residing  in  the  United 
States  will  not  ])revail  against  the  public  administrator's  right.^ 
So  the  public  administrator  has  preference  over  the  guardian  to 
one  next  of  kin;'-^  and,  at  tlie  surrogate's  discretion,^  over  a  trust 
company  authorized  by  statute  to  administer;*  and  in  California 
is  preferred  to  one  who  is  creditor  of  the  intestate  and  the  nom- 
inee of  a  non-resident  heir.^  In  Illinois  the  creditor  of  a  non- 
resident intestate  is  preferred  to  the  public  administrator.^  In 
Louisiana  the  public  administrator  as  such  is  not  entitled  to  ad- 
minister as  dative  testamentary  executor  where  the  testamentary 
executor  has  died,  and  there  are  heirs  present  in  the  State  ; ''  nor 
to  a  grant  of  letters  where  there  are  heirs  in  the  State ;  ^  and  the 
temporary  absence  from  the  State  of  the  widow  or  heirs  does  not 
authorize  the  appointment  of  the  public  administrator.^  His  right 
to  be  appointed  exists  only  where  there  is  a  vacancy  in  the  admin- 
istration ;  he  has  no  authority  in  law  to  provoke  the  removal  of 
an  executor  or  administrator.^^ 

§  181.  Administrators  Pendente  Lite.  ~  The  authority  of  testa- 
mentary courts  to  grant  administration  pendente  lite  —  during 
Powers  of  ad-  a  Controversy  concerning  the  right  to  the  adminis- 
pendente lite,  tration — sccms  to  have  always  been  admitted;  and 
since  the  case  of  Walker  v.  Woolaston,^^  the  power  of  the  court  to 
grant  administration  p)endente  lite  in  cases  touching  an  executor- 
ship also  has  been  settled. ^^  The  safety  of  the  estate  requires  that 
some  person  be  charged  with  the  duty  and  armed  with  the  neces- 
sary authority  to  protect  and  preserve  it  until  the  termination 

1  Public  Administrator  v.  Watts,  1  Pai.  public  administrator  is  entitled  to  admin- 
.347,  382  ;  Matter  of  Blank,  2  Redf.  44.3,  ister :  Sutton  v.  Public  Admr.,  4  Dem.  -33. 
445  ;  Murphy's  Estate,  Myr.  185.  See  also  In  re  Garber,  74  Cal.  338. 

2  Speckles  v.  Public  Administrator,  1  ^  Rosenthal  v.  Prussing,  108  111.  128. 
Dem.  475  (under  a  special  act  of  New  7  If  a  public  administrator,  who  is  also 
York) ;  and  over  an  illegitimate  claimant  an  heir,  is  appointed  under  such  circum- 
whose  riglit  to  distribution  is  not  clearly  stances,  it  will  be  assumed  that  he  was 
proved  :  Ferrie  v.  Public  Administrator,  appointed  as  one  of  the  heirs  :  Succession 
3  Bradf.  249.  of  Bougere,  -30  La.  An.  422. 

3  Goddard's  Estate,  94  N.  Y.  544,  552.  8  Succession  of  Henry,  31  La.  An.  555. 
*  Because  an  individual  is  preferable  ^  Succession  of  Longuefosse,  34  La. 

to    a    corporation  :    Goddard    v.    Public  An.  583.     To  same  effect.  Succession   of 

Administrator,  1  Dem.  480,  483.  Smith,  3  So.  R.  (La.)  539. 

5  Estate  of  Hyde,  64  Cal.  228.     One  i*^  Succession  of  Burnside,  34  La.  An. 

who  is  the  only  next  of  kin,  but  disquali-  728. 

fied  because  a  non-resident  alien,  cannot  "  2  P.  Wms.  576,  decided  in  K.  B.,  on 

by  power  of  attorney  authorize  another  error  from  C.  P.,  Trin.  T.,  1731. 

to  act  as  administrator.     In  such  case  the  ^^  Wms.  Ex.  [495]. 


181 


ADMINISTRATORS   PENDENTE   LITE. 


401 


of  the  contest  touching  the  administration  or  executorship  shall 
place  it  in  the  charge  of  the  permanent  administrator  or  execu- 
tor;* hence  they  are  also  known  as  administrators  ad  colligendum, 
and  the  general  duties  of  such  an  administrator  have  been  de- 
scribed as  being  simply  to  represent  the  estate  during  the  pen- 
dency of  the  litigation  and  to  see  that  no  detriment  comes  to  the 
goods  or  effects  of  the  estate,^  and  administrators  pendente  lite 
compared  to  receivers  in  chancery .^  Their  authority  ceases,  of 
course,  upon  the  termination  of  the  contest,^  and  they  must  then 
surrender  the  estate  into  the  hands  of  the  rightful  representative.^ 
But  until  such  termination  of  their  office  they  may  maintain 
suits  for  debts  due  the  deceased,  and  bring  ejectment  for  lease- 
hold estates  against  the  heirs,  next  of  kin,  or  any  other  person 
who  may  be  in  possession.*^  Whatever  they  may  lawfully  do  is 
binding  upon  the  estate,  and  the  authority  of  the  subsequently 
appointed  rightful  administrator  or  executor  is  confined  to  so 
much  of  the  estate  as  may  remain  unadministered.^  In  the  ab- 
sence of  statutory  authority,  they  have  no  power  other  than  may 
be  necessary  to  collect  the  effects,  not  even  to  invest  or  distribute 
them ;  8  nor  to  pay  legacies,^  or  debts,^*^  but  if  they  were  paid  ho7ia 
fide^  they  will  be  allowed.i*     But  the  powers  of  administrators 


1  Walker  v.  Dougherty,  14  Ga.  653 
656 ;  Sarle  v.  Court  of  Probate,  7  R.  I 
270,  274  ;  Gresharn  v.  Pyron,  17  Ga.  263^ 
265;  Crozier  v.  Goodwin,  1  Lea,  368 
Lawrence  v.  Parsons,  27  How.  Pr.  26 
Succession  of  De  Flechier,  1  La.  An.  20 
Flora  V.  Mennice,  12  Ala.  836;  Salter- 
white  V.  Carson,  3  Ired.  L.  549,  553 
Robinson's  Estate,  12  Phil.  14. 

2  3Redf.  on  Wills,  108,  pi.  2,  8. 
8  Schoul.  Ex.  &  Adm.  §  134. 

*  If  it  is  desired  to  have  the  adminis- 
trator pendente  lite  act  as  general  adminis- 
trator after  the  contest  is  decided,  he  must 
receive  a  new  appointment  as  general 
administrator,  Coleiv  Wooden,  18  N.J.  L. 
15,  19,  citing  Piggot's  Case,  5  Rep.  29. 
See  also  Munnikhuysen  v.  Magraw,  57 
Md.  172,  195. 

°  Ellmaker's  Estate,  4  Watts,  34,  36, 
citing  Commonwealth  v.  Mateer,  16  S.  & 
R.  416,  and  Adair  v.  Shaw,  1  Sch.  &  Lef. 
243,  254  ;  State  v.  Craddock,  7  Ilarr.  & 
John.  40  ;  Ro  Bards  v.  Lamb,  89  Mo.  303, 
311,  holding  that  notice  of  settlement  by 
VOL.  I.  —  26 


the  administrntor  pendente  lite  with  the 
regular  executor  need  not  be  given.  If 
there  be  an  appeal,  the  suit  is  not  at  an  end 
until  the  appeal  is  determined  :  Brown  v. 
Ryder,  42  N.  J.  Eq.  356;  post,  ch.  lix.,  on 
appeals. 

6  Matter  of  Colvin,  3Md.  Ch.  278,  295. 
In  Libby  v.  Cobb,  70  Me.  471,  such  an 
administrator  was  allowed,  under  the  cir- 
cumstances, to  redeem  his  intestate's  land 
from  a  mortgage. 

^  Patton's  Appeal,  31  Pa.  St.  465. 

8  3  Redf.  108,  pi.  3,  citing  Gallivan  v. 
Evans,  1  Ball  &  Beatty,  191  ;  Kaminer 
V.  Hope,  9  S.  C.  253,  258.  In  a  second 
appeal  of  the  same  case,  18  S.  C.  561, 
674,  it  is  held  that  the  administrator  ;;cn- 
dente  lite  may  bring  actions  to  recover 
debts  due  his  intestate's  estate. 

9  Wms.  Ex.  [499]. 

1"  Mclver,  J.,  in  Kaminer  v.  Hope,  18 
S.  C.  5G1,  576,  citing  Stevenson  v.  Wilcox, 
16  S.  C.  432. 

11  lb.,  citing  Adair  v.  Shaw,  1  Sch.  Sc, 
Lef.  243,  254. 


402  SPECIAL   AND   QUALIFIED   ADMINISTRATORS.  §  181 

pendente  lite  are  enlarged  by  the  English  probate  act,^  to  include 
;ill  the  rights  and  powers  of  a  general  administrator  except  the 
right  of  distributing  the  residue,^  and  the  tendency  in  America  is 
in  the  same  direction.^ 

Administrators  pendente  lite  are  officers  of  the  court,  and  not 
the  mere  nominees  or  agents  of  the  parties  on  whose  recommen- 
dation they  are  selected ;  ^  hence  they  must  give  bond,  although 
administration  be  granted  jointly  to  the  nominees  of  the  two  liti- 
gating parties.^  It  is  said  by  Judge  Redfield,  that  the  nominee  of 
neither  party  should,  as  a  general  rule,  be  appointed,*^  but  that 
such  may  be  done  out  of  regard  to  special  fitness;'  andi,a  fortiori^ 
where  both  parties  agree.^  In  England,  the  probate  court  will 
refuse  to  appoint  an  administrator  pendente  lite  when  the  contest 
does  not  affect  the  rights  of  the  executors;^  in  Missouri,  on  the 
contrary,  the  statute  is  construed  as  making  it  obligatory  upon 
the  probate  court  to  appoint  some  person  administrator  pendente 
lite  other  than  the  person  charged  with  the  execution  of  the  will, 
whether  this  be  an  executor  or  an  administrator  cum  testamento 
annexo,  whenever  a  contest  of  the  will  exists.^^  In  Tennessee,  an 
administrator  pendente  lite  appointed  by  a  chancery  court  is  held 
to  possess  all  the  powers  of  a  general  administrator,  and  no  other 
administration  can  be  granted  to  succeed  him,  unless  upon  his 
resignation  or  removal.^^ 

Letters  of  general  administration  granted  pending  the  contest 
of  a  will  are  null  and  void,  and  cannot  be  supported  as  a  grant 
of  administration  pendente  lite  ;^^  nor  can  there  be  a  valid  grant 
of  administration  pendente  lite  after  a  general  administrator  has 
fully  settled  the  estate.^^ 

1  20  &  21  Vict.  c.  77,  §  70.  9  Mortimer  v.  Paull,  L.  R.  2  P.  &  D. 

■^  Tichborne   v.  Tichborne,  L.  R.  2  P.  85.     So  in  New  York,  otlier  tilings  being 

&  D.  41.  equal,  it  is  said  that   considerations  of 

3  Benson  iJ.  Wolf ,  43  N.  J.  L.  78  ;  In  re  economy  would  demand  that  the  one 
Duncan,3Redf.  153;  Cadmany.  Richards,  named  as  executor  in  a  disputed  will, 
13  Neb.  383.  should  be  appointed:  Haas  v.  Childs,  4 

4  Wms.  Ex.  [498]  ;  Stanley  v.  Bernes,  Dem.  137. 

1  Hagg.  221.  1'^  Lamb   v.    Helm,   56   Mo.   420,   4-30, 

5  Stanley  v.  Bernes,  supra;  Matter  of  citing  and  approving  Rogers  v.  Dively, 
Colvin,  3  Md.  Ch.  278,  297.  51  Mo.  193. 

6  3  Redf.  on  Wills,  109,  pi.  6.  An  in-  n  Todd  v.  Wright,  12  Heisk.  442, 
different    person    should    be    selected  :  447. 

Mootrie  v.  Hunt,  4  Bradf.  173.  ^^  giade  v.  Washburn,  3  Ired.  L.  557, 

">  Young  V.  Brown,  1  Hagg.  53.  562. 

8  Schoul.  Ex.  &  Adm.  §  134,  note  (3) ;  is  pisk  v.  Norvel,  9  Tex.  13,  17. 
Wms.  Ex.  [497],  note  (i). 


§  182  ADMINISTRATORS   DURANTE  MINORE   iETATE.  403 

As  to  the  privity  between  administrators  pendente  lite  and 
general  administrators,  there  will  be  occasion  to  treat  here- 
after.i 

§   182.    Administrators   durante    Minore    ^tate.  —  The    different 
classes  of  administration  which  have  been  the  subject  of  discus- 
sion in  the  preceding  sections  of  this  chapter  are  as  Distinction 
essential,  and  tlierefore  as  common,  in  this  country  as  m'i',)jst'r"tor8 
in  England,     The  functions  accorded  to  each  corre-  e^^stntiai  to 

°  the  adrninis- 

spond  to  some  peculiar  condition  of  the  estate,  or  of  tration,  and 

sucti  iis  (irc 

the  parties  interested  therein,  and  are  clearly  distin-  necessary  un- 
guishable  on  essential  grounds ;  but  in  their  aggregate  pecui*^ar toUie 
they  arc  indispensable  to  the  full  administration  of  '^"™'"''"  i^^- 
the  property  of  deceased  persons,  which  may  require  their  exer- 
cise in  the  one  or  other  form.  In  addition  to  these  classes  of 
administration,  there  are  others  known  to  the  common  law,  and 
of  importance  in  England,  which  are  not  so  important  in  America, 
because  the  theory  of  administration  differs  in  the  two  countries 
in  some  important  particulars,  chief  among  which  is  the  time 
during  which  the  authority  of  personal  representatives  continues. 
In  England  the  administration  extends,  in  general,  to  the  whole 
personal  estate  of  the  deceased,  and  terminates  only  with  the  life 
of  the  grantee ;  while  the  authority  of  limited  administrators  is 
confined  to  a  particular  extent  of  time,  or  to  a  specified  subject 
matter.2  At  the  common  law,  too,  executors,  and  at  one  period 
of  time  administrators,  possessed  an  interest  in  the  residuum  of 
the  estates  in  their  charge  which  has  rarely  or  never  been  recog- 
nized in  the  United  States.^  It  is  the  policy  in  this  country, 
declared  and  emphasized  by  the  statutes  of  the  several  States, 
echoed  by  the  courts,  and  warmly  approved  by  the  people,  to  reduce 
the  time  allowed  executors  and  administrators  to  close  up  their 
administrations  to  the  briefest  period  compatible  with  justice  to 
creditors.  In  consequence  of  this  policy,  the  more  speedy  settle- 
ment of  estates  has  greatly  reduced  tlie  ratio  of  cases  giving  rise 
to  questions  involving  the  necessity  of  special  administrators ; 
and  the  right  to  administer  is  itself  of  far  less  importance  under 
American  statutes  than  it  was  at  common  law.  Hence  American 
the  American  policy  is  to  discourage  grants  of  limited  co,mf''rspedai 
in  favor  of  full  administration,  whether  original  or  de  administrators. 

1  See  post,  §  354.  3  gee  ante,  p.  403 ;  post,  %  352. 

2  Wms.  Ex   [479]. 


404  SPECIAL   AND   QUALIFIED   ADMINISTRATOES.  §  183 

bonis  non,  in  testate  or  intestate  estates.^  Nevertheless,  it  some- 
times happens  that  special  administrators  are  necessary  to  the 
accomplishment  of  justice,  and  limited  administrations  are  pro- 
vided for  by  the  statutes  of  many  States,  or  recognized  as  existing 
at  common  law. 

Thus  it  may  happen  that  a  person  nominated  sole  executor,  or 
he  to  whom  the  right  of  administration  has  devolved  under  the 
statute,  may  be  within  age  at  the  time  of  the  testator's  or  intes- 
tate's death.  In  such  case  a  peculiar  administration  was  grant- 
able  at  common  law,  known  as  durante  minore  cetate,  —  during  the 
minority  of  the  executor  or  administrator  entitled  to  the  adminis- 
tration ;  2  and  the  like  provisions  exist  in  the  American  States,-^ 
distinguishing,  in  some  instances,  between  the  rights  of  executors 
and  those  of  administrators.*  The  grant  in  such  cases  is  usually 
to  the  guardian  of  the  minor  ;5  but  the  selection  is  entirely  within 
the  sound  discretion  of  the  court.^ 

Administrators  during  minority  are  said  to  possess  all  the  au- 
thority, for  the  time  being,  of  general  administrators,'^  whatever 
may  have  been  the  prevailing  opinion  in  earlier  times  ;^  their  acts 
are  binding  upon  the  estate,  and  when  their  office  has  expired  by 
reason  of  the  majority  of  the  executor  or  administrator  in  his 
own  right,  they  are  liable  to  creditors  for  devastavit,^  but  only 
to  the  executor  or  administrator  for  the  assets ;  and  if  he  has 
duly  administered  and  turned  over  the  surplus,  he  may  show 
this  under  the  plea  of  plene  administravit  ^^  in  defence  of  a  suit 
by  creditors. 

§  183.  Administrators  durante  Absentia.  —  For  a  reason  similar 
to  that  which  requires  the  grant  of  administration  durante  minore 

1  Schoul.  Ex.  &  Adm.  §  135 ;  3  Redf.  New  York :  Blanck  v.  Morrison,  4  Dem. 

on  "Wills,  113,  pi.  5.  297. 

'i  Wms.  Ex.  [479];  Wallis  v.  Wallis,  *'  Pitcher  y.  Armat,  5  How.  (Miss.)  288, 

1  Winst.  78;  Bell,  J.,  in  Taylor  v.  Bar-  289;  Wms.  [480], citing  Briers  y.  Goddard, 

ron,  35  N.  H.  484,  493 ;  Collins  v.  Spear,  Hob.  250;  Thomas  v.  Butler,  Ventr.  217, 

Walk.  (Miss.)  310.  219;  West  v.  WiUby,  3  Phillim.  374,  379. 

3  3  Redf.  on  Wills,  104,  pi.  1.  ^  3  Redf.  106,  pi.  4 ;  Schoul.  Ex.  §  132. 

*  E.  g.  in  Missouri,  where  administra-  ^  Wms.  Ex.  [488]  et  seq.,  citing  na- 
tion durante  minore  cetate  will  be  granted  merous  autliorities. 

in  case  of  a  minor  executor,  but  the  law  ^  Wms.  Ex.  [492],  citing  Bull,  N.  P. 

is  silent  as  to  minor  administrators  :  Rev.  145;   Palmer  v.  Litherland,  Latch,  160; 

St.  1879,  §  14.  Packman's  Case,  6  Co.  19 ;  Chandler  v. 

5  3  Redf.  on  Wills,   104,  pi.  2,  citing  Thompson,  Hob.  265  6,  266;  Lawson  v. 

Brotherton  v.  Hellier,  2  Cas.  Temp.  Lee,  Crofts,  1  Sid.  57. 

131;  In  re  Sartoris,  1  Curt.  910;  Wms.  "  Anon.,  1   Frem.    150;    Brooking  v. 

Ex.  [481],  and  authorities.    By  statute  in  Jennings,  1  Mod.  174. 


§  184  TEMPORARY   AND  LIMITED   ADMINISTRATORS.  405 

cttate,  administrators  arc  sometimes  appointed  to  take  Administrator 
charge  of  estates  during  the  temporary  absence  from  u*j,|fi'^t*j,e'j.e[urn 
tlic  State  of  the  executor  or  next  of  kin  entitled  to  the  "^  ^^  absent 

executor  or 

administration.^    At  common  law  this  class  of  admin-  administrator, 
istrators   can  be  appointed  only  before  probate  of  the  will,  or 
before  the  grant  of  original  letters  of  administration  ;2  although 
in  England  the  spiritual  courts  were  enabled  by  statute  to  grant 
special  administration  where  the  executor  to  whom  probate  had 
been  granted  had  absented  himself  from  the  jurisdiction  of  the 
English  courts.-^     Such  authority  is  not  vested  in  American  pro- 
bate courts.*     The  usual  course  in  this  country  is  to 
treat  prolonged  absence  from  the  State,  by  an  executor  administrator 
or  administrator  who  has  made  no  provision  to  be  rep-  pointed  if  ^^ 
resented,  as  a  cause  for  his  removal  and  the  appoint-  °cuTo"r'*m^ad- 
ment  of  an  administrator  de  bonis  non  ;  and  even  in  ministrator 

absent  himself. 

the  case  of  absence  before  probate  or  grant  of  general 
administration,  it  is  more  usual,  in  the  absence  of  statutory  pro- 
visions directing  a  different  course,  to  disregard  the  absent  execu- 
tor or  next  of  kin  and  appoint  a  general  administrator  at  once.' 

In  those  of  the  States  in  which  non-residents  are  competent  to 
act  as  executors  and  administrators,  the  grant  may,  of  course,  be 
to  such  non-resident,  or  to  his  attorney  or  nominee ;  but  such 
grants  do  not  constitute  administrators  durante  absentia,  whose 
office  is  temporary,  ceasing  upon  the  return  of  the  executor  or 
administrator  originally  entitled.^ 

§  184.  Other  temporary  and  limited  Administrators.  —  Several 
other  instances  of  temporary  or  special  administrations  may  be 
mentioned,  a  list  of  which  is  furnished  in  Williams's  treatise  on 
Executors  and  Administrators  ;'^  Schouler  mentions  them  under 
the  head  of  "  Special  Administrations  for   limited   and   special 

1  Ritchie  v.  McAuslin,  1  Hayw.  220;  *  Griffith  v.  Frazier,  8  Cr.  9,  21,  citing 

Willing  V.  Perot,  5  Rawle,  264.  the  manuscript  opinion  of  the  Court  of 

-  Wins.  Ex.  [502],  citing  3  Bac.  Abr.  Appeals  of   South   Carolina   in   Ford  v. 

oG,  tit.  Executors,  G;  Clare  v.  Hedges  (3  Travis,  deciding  the  grant  of  adininistra- 

W.&M.),  cited  in  1  Lutw.  342;  Lord  Holt,  tion   after  probate  of  a  will  to  be  void, 

in  Slater  y.  May,  2  Ld.  Raym.  1071,  saying  although  the  executor  is  absent, 
that  this  administration  stood  upon  the  ^  3  Redf.  on  Wills,  111,  pi.  2  ;  Schoul. 

same  reason  as  an  administration  durante  Ex.  §  133.     See  ante,  §  182. 
minore  atate,  viz.  that  there  siiould  be  a  ^  Schoul.  Ex.  §  133,  citing  Rainsford 

person  to  manage  the  estate  of  the  testator  v.  Taynton,  7  Ves.  460,  466. 
till  the  person  appointed  by  him  is  able.  ''  Wms.  [513]. 

3  By  statute  38  Geo.  III.  c.  87  (usually 
called  Simeon's  Act). 


406  SPECIAL   AND   QUALIFIED   ADMINISTRATOES.  §  184 

Purposes,"  ^  and  Redfield  says  of  them  that,  as  a  general  thing, 
*'  these  limited  administrations  seldom  or  never  obtain  in  the 
American  practice,  the  probate  courts  preferring,  for  the  conven- 
ience and  security  of  all  concerned,  to  have  the  administration  of 
the  settlement  of  estates  as  simple  as  practicable."  ^ 

It  seems  necessary,  however,  to  briefly  refer  to  the  nature  of 
tliese  peculiar  administrations  as  recognized  at  common  law  and 
in  some  of  the  States,  to  avoid  expense  and  complication,  and 
accomplish  the  protection  of  estates  under  peculiar  and  unusual 
circumstances. 

Temporary  administration  becomes  necessary  if  the  executor 
appointed  is  directed  to  take  charge  of  the  estate  at  a  time  men- 
Temporary  tioned  by  the  testator,  and  the  latter  die  before  the 
appohuecUf  time  so  mentioned; 3  in  such  case  the  ofhce  of  the 
befwe  a^  '^'^  administrator  appointed  until  the  efflux  of  such  time 
certain  time.  ^yj^  correspond  cxactly  to  that  of  an  administrator 
durante  minore  cetate.  So  where  it  is  known  that  there  is  a  will, 
which  cannot  at  the  time  be  produced  for  probate,  limited  admin- 
istration may  be  necessary  until  its  production  ;  ^  or  where  the 
executor  fails  to  appear,  until  such  time  as  he  comes  and  proves 
the  will,^  or  till  a  lost  will  be  found ;  ^  or  during  incapacity  of 
executor  or  next  of  kin  entitled  to  administration.'^ 

There  may  be,  also,  a  grant  of  administration  limited  to  certain 
specific  effects  of  the  deceased,  while  the  general  administration 
may  be  committed  to  a  different  person  ;  ^  a  testator  may  appoint 
different  executors  as  to  different  parts  of  his  estate  in  the  same 
country  ;^  and  where  an  executor  has  not  qualified  to  execute  a 
will  disposing  of  part  of  the  estate  only,  special  administration 
may  be  granted  as  to  so  much  of  the  estate  as  does  not  pass  by 
the  will.io  But  such  grants  are  said  to  be  entirely  exceptional, 
and  should  not  be  made  unless  a  very  strong  reason  be  given." 

1  Schoul.  Ex.  §  135.  My.  &  K.  3,  4;  Goods  of  Joseph,  1  Curt. 

2  3  Redf.  on  Wills,  113,  pi.  5.  907  ;  Goods  of  Southmead,  3  Curt.  28. 

8  Wins.  Ex.  [249,250].  «  McNairy  v.  Bell,  6  Yerg.  302,  304; 

*  Goods  of  Metcalfe,  1  Add.  343.  Jordan  v.  Polk,  1  Sneed,  430,  434 ;  Goods 

5  Wras.  Ex.  [515],  citing  1  Gibs.  Cod.     of  Biou,  3  Curt.  739. 

574 ;  see  also  Howell  v.  Metcalfe,  2  Add.  ^  Dorsey,  J.,  in  Hunter  v.  Bryson,  5 

348,  350.  Gill  &  J.  483,  488. 

6  Goods  of  Campbell,  2  Hagg.  555.  ^^  Dean  v.  Biggers,  27  Ga.  73,  75. 

7  Hills  V.  Mills,  1  Salk.  36  ;  Toller,  99 ;  "  Wms.  Ex.  [520] ;  Goods  of  Watts, 
Anon.,  1  Cas.  Temp.  Lee,  625;  Goods  of  1  Sw.  &  Tr.  538;  Goods  of  Somerset, 
Phillips,  2  Add.  336,  note  (b) ;  Goods  of  L.  R.  1  P.  &  D.  350. 

Milnes,  3  Add.  55;  Ex  parte  Evelyn,  2 


§  184        TEMPORARY   AND   LIMITED   ADMINISTRATORS.  407 

Special  administrators,  known  as  administrators  ad  litem,  are 
sometimes  appointed  for  the  sole  purpose  of  defending  or  prose- 
cuting particular  suits  instituted  by  or  against  a  person  who  may 
die  while  such  suit  is  pending ;  ^  or  where  a  pressing  necessity  is 
shown  for  carrying  on  proceedings  in  chancery,  and  there  is  no 
general  personal  representative ;  '^  or  where  the  interest  of  the 
general  administrator  or  executor  conflicts  with  tliat  of  the  estate.^ 
It  has  been  held  that  probate  courts  have  inherent  power  to  grant 
limited  administration,  within  their  discretion,  whenever  it  is 
necessary  for  tlie  purposes  of  justice ;  *  but  such  administrators 
possess  no  powers  except  such  as  are  specially  granted  by  the 
probate  judge  at  the  time  of  his  appointment,  and  should  not  be 
kept  in  office  longer  than  may  be  necessary  for  the  appointment 
of  a  general  administration.^ 

In  Texas  the  testator  may  direct  that  no  other  action  shall  be 
had,  in  the  court  having  testamentary  jurisdiction,  in  relation  to 
the  settlement  of  his  estate,  than  the  probating  and  recording  of 
the  will,  return  of  an  inventory,  appraisement,  and  list  of  claims 
of  his  estate;  the  executor  of  such  a  will  is  known  as  an  "inde- 
pendent executor,"  ^  and  the  management  of  the  estate  thereunder 
is  recognized  as  administrationJ 

1  Wade  V.  Bridges,  24  Ark.  569,  572 ;  8  Rgv.  St.  Mo.  1879,  §  207. 
Lotlirop's  Case,  33  N.  J.  Eq.  246.     See          *  Martin  v.  Dry  Dock  Co.,  92  N.  Y. 
Wolffe  V.  Eberlein,  74  Ala.  99,  107.  70 ;  Per  Gray,  J.,  in  McArthur  v.  Scott, 

2  VVms.  Ex.  [522],  citing  Goods  of  the  113  U.  S.  340,  399. 

Elector  of  Hesse,  1  Hagg.  93 ;  Harris  v.  ^  Dull  v.  Drake,  63  Tex.  205,  207. 

Milburn,  2  Hagg.  62;  Maclean  v.  Daw-  »  1   Sayers,   Tex.   Civ.    St.    §  1942; 

son,  1  Sw.  &  Tr.  425;  Hawarden  i'.  Dun-  Holmes  v.  Johns,  56  Tex.  41,  51 ;  Dwyer 

lop,  2  Sw.  &  Tr.  614 ;  Woolley  v.  Gordon,  v.  Kalteyer,  68  Tex.  554,  563. 
3  Phillim.  314 ;  Goods  of  Dodgson,  1  Sw.  &  ^  Todd  v.  Willis,  66  Tex.  704. 

Tr.  259  ;  Ex  parte  Lyon,  60  Ala.  650,  653 ; 
McArthur  v.  Scott,  113  U.  S.  340,  399. 


TITLE   THIRD. 

OF  THE  DEVOLUTION  TO  THE  LEGAL  REPRE- 
SENTATIVES. 


PART    FIRST. 
OF  THE  ESTATE  WITHOUT  OFFICIAL  REPRESENTATION. 


CHAPTER  XX. 

WHAT  MAY  BE  DONE  BEFORE  PROBATE  OR  GRANT  OP  LETTERS. 

§  185.  To  whom  the  Real  and  to  whom  the  Personal  Property 
descends.  —  Upon  the  death  of  an  owner  of  property  his  real 
estate  descends,  at  common  law,  to  his  heirs  or  devi- 
scendstoheir  sccs,  siibject,  under  a  series  of  English  statutes,  to  be 
converted  into  assets  for  the  payment  of  the  owner's 
debts,  if  the  personalty  be  insufficient  for  that  purpose.  This  lia- 
bility, however,  does  not  deflect  the  course  of  descent :  the  per- 
sonal representative  possesses  only  the  naked  power  to  sell  or 
lease  the  real  estate,  if  it  become  necessary,  to  pay  debts,  and 
until  this  power  is  executed,  by  order  of  the  court  having  juris- 
diction, the  title  and  its  defence,  the  possession,  rents,  and  profits, 
belong  to  the  heirs  and  devisees.^  The  title  of  the  heir  or  devisee 
vests  instantly  upon  the  death  of  the  ancestor  or  testator ;  and 
when  the  executor  or  administrator  sells,  the  sale  does  not  relate 
back  to  the  death  of  the  deceased,  but  takes  effect  from  the  time 
when  made.2    The  law  is  substantially  the  same  in  all  but  six  or 

1  See  post,  §  337  et  seq.,  and  §  463  et         2  Boynton  v.  Peterborough  R.  R.  Co., 
seq.  4  Cush.  467,  469. 


§  185  TO   WHOM   THE   PROPERTY   DESCENDS.  409 

seven  of  the  American  States,  which  have  abolished  the  artificial 
common    law    rule    distinp:uishino;,   in    this    respect, 

,     ,  ,  -,  ?  -,  .  ,     Exception  in 

between  real  and  personal  estate,  and  subject  both  some  of  the 
classes  of  property  alike  to  the  title  of  personal  repre- 
sentatives for  the  purpose  of  administration.     These  exceptions 
will  be  more  conveniently  noted  in  connection  with  the  subject  of 
the  liability  of  real  estate  for  the  debts  of  its  deceased  owner.^ 

The  personal  estate  of  a  decedent,  however,  passes,  as  at  com- 
mon law,  so  in  all  the  States,  with  the  exception,  in  personal  prop- 
some  particulars,  of  Louisiana,  to  the  executor  or  trti,^!fe^r^^^^^^^^^ 
administrator.2  This  doctrine  is  so  universally  ad-  representatives. 
mitted,  that  it  would  be  useless  to  cite  any  of  the  numerous 
authorities  so  holding.^ 

We  have  already  seen,  however,  that  as  to  the  time  when  the 
personal  estate  vests  in  the  representatives  there  is,  at  common 
law,  a  broad  distinction  between  executors  and  admin-  personal  estate 
istrators.^     It  results  from  the  English  doctrine  as-  tw^attestaiOT^'s 
cribing  the  executor's  authority  to  the  will  itself,  of  ^^^^^'^ 
which  the  probate  is  but  the  authenticated  evidence,^  that  the 
property  of  the  deceased  vests  in  the  executor  from  the  moment 
of   the   testator's   death  ;  ^   while   the   administrator,  in  administra- 
whose  sole  source  of  authority  is  the  appointment  by  on/is°.'Jp™ift- 
the  probate  court,  can  have  no  power  to  act  before  '"^°^- 
the  grant  of   letters,"  although  it  is  said  that,  when  appointed, 
his  title  relates  back  to  the  death  of  the  intestate  or  „     . , 

But  title  and 

testator,**  as  the  probate,  when  produced,  is  also  said  piobate  both 
to  have  relation  to  the  testator's  death.^    Upon  these  thifeof  death'^of 
principles,  it  is   said  that  "the  executor,  before   he  *^« '^^'=*^^^^'i- 
proves  the  .will  in  the  probate  court,  may  do  almost  all  the  acts 
which  are  incidental  to  his  office,  except  only  some  of  those  which 

1  Post,  ch.  1. ;  see  §  337  et  seg.,  where  "  Letters  testamentary  are  merely  the  evi- 
a  list  of  the  States  is  given,  and  §  276.  dence  establishing  that  the  executor  has 

2  "  By  the  laws  of  this  realm,"  says  been  duly  qualified  to  act " :  Succession 
Swinburne  (pt.  6,  §  3,  pi.  5),  "  as  the  heir  of  Vogel,  20  La.  An.  81,  82. 

hatii  not  to  deal  with  the  goods  and  chat-  6  Wms.   Ex.    [203],   citing    Hensloe's 

tels  of  the  deceased,  no  more  hatli  the  Case,  9  Co.  36,  38  a  ;  Comber's  Case,  1  P. 

executor  to  do  with  the  lands,  tenements,  Wms.  766,  767  ;  Smith  v.  Milles,  1  T.  R. 

and  hereditaments."  475,  480 ;  Woolley  v.  Clark,  5  B.  &  Aid. 

3  A  comprehensive  list  of  them  is  744;  and  see  Hathorn  v.  Eaton,  70  Me.  219. 
appended  by  Perkins  to  his  American  '  Rand  v.  Hubbard,  4  Met.  (Mass.) 
edition  of  Wms.  on  Ex.  [650],  note  (d'^).  262,  256. 

*  ^nte,  §§  171,  172.  8  Drury  v.  Natick,  10  Allen,  169,  174. 

6  Ex  parte   Fuller,  2  Sto.    327,  332;  »  See  ajite,  §  172. 


410 


WHAT  MAY  BE  DONE  BEFORE  PEOBATE. 


§186 


In  England  relate  to  suits."  ^  He  may  even  commence  an  action 
acrSore'pro-  l^eforc  the  probate,  and  it  was  enough  that  he  had  ob- 
bateof  thewiii.  taincd  letters  testamentary  and  made  prof  ert  of  them 
at  the  time  of  the  declaration.^ 

§  186.  Authority  of  Executors  before  Grant  of  Letters  Testamen- 
tary. —  In  most  of  the  American  States  executors  are  required  to 
In  America  qualify  by  giving  bond  and  taking  the  oath  of  office  ; 
qualify  before  Until  they  havc  complied  with  these  conditions  they 
he  can  act ;  jjg^yg  j^q  legal  powcr  to  act,^  cxccpt  to  dcccntly  bury 
the  deceased  and  to  do  what  may  be  necessary  to  preserve  the 
estate.*  Where  the  statute  authorizes  the  executor  to  act  without 
bond,  the  grant  of  letters  testamentary  by  the  probate  court  is  the 
source  of  his  authority,  which  does  not  depend  for  its  validity  upon 
and  cannot        the  manual  issuance  of  the  letters.^     Hence  the  sale 

give  title  to 
real  estate  of 
the  testator 
before  grant 
of  letters,  nor 
assent  to  a 
legacy;  but 
may  demand 
bond, and 
appeal  from  re- 
fusal to  grant 
probate. 


or  transfer  of  property  by  an  executor  who  has  not 
qualified  is  void,^  and  his  assent  to  a  specific  legacy 
does  not  pass  the  legal  title  to  the  thing  bequeathed.^ 
But  a  person  nominated  as  executor  has  sufficient  in- 
terest in  the  estate  to  demand  that  one  acting  as  exec- 
utor under  a  former  will  of  the  same  testator  shall  give 
bond  pending  the  proceeding  to  establish  the  later 
will,^  and  to  appeal  from  the  refusal  to  grant  probate;^  and  it  has 
also  been  held  that  a  foreign  executor  may,  without  probate  or 
grant  of  letters  in  the  forum  of  the  debtor,  make  demand  for  the 
payment  of  a  promissory  note  to  his  testator,  so  as  to  charge 
the  indorser.i^ 


^  Wms.  Ex.  [302].  An  executor  can 
maintain  a  suit  only  by  virtue  of  his 
letters  testamentary :  Dixon  v.  Ramsay, 
3  Cr.  319,  323. 

2  Thomas  v.  Cameron,  16  Wend.  579, 
580,  citing  Com.  Dig.  Administration,  B, 
9;  Bac.  Abr.  Ex'rs  and  Adm'rs,  E,  p.  1, 
14;  Humbert  v.  Wurster,  22  Hun,  405, 
406;  Seabrook  v.  Freeman,  3  McC.  371. 
In  Maine  he  may  bring  an  action  of  tres- 
pass, before  probate :  Hathorn  v.  Eaton, 
70  Me.  219. 

3  Gardner  v.  Gantt,  19  Ala.  666,  670, 
citing  earlier  Alabama  cases  ;  Wood  v. 
Cosby,  76  Ala.  557  ;  Diamond  v.  Shell, 
15  Ark.  26 ;  Echols  v.  Barrett,  6  Ga.  443, 
446  ;  Mitchell  v.  Rice,  6  J.  J.  Marsh.  623, 
627  ;  McKeen  v.  Frost,  46  Me.  239,  248  ; 
Stagg    V.    Green,   47   Mo.   600;    Fay   v. 


Reager,  2  Sneed,  200,  203  ;  Kittredge  v. 
Folsom,  8  N.  H.  98,  111 ;  Wood  v.  Sparks, 
1  Dev.  &  B.  389,  396 ;  Trask  v.  Donoghue, 
1  Aik.  370,  373. 

*  McDearmon  v.  Maxfield,  38  Ark.  631, 
636 ;  Killebrew  v.  Murphy,  3  Heisk.  546, 
553 ;  Luscomb  v.  Ballard,  5  Gray,  403,  400. 
As  to  the  acts  rendering  one  liable  as 
executor  de  son  tort,  see  post,  §§  189-191. 

°  Ludlow  V.  Flournoy,  34  Ark.  451, 461. 

6  Monroe  v.  James,  4  Munf.  194,  200  ; 
Humbert  v.  Wurster,  22  Hun,  405 ;  Car- 
ter V.  Carter,  10  B.  Mon.  327,  330 ;  Gay 
V.  Minot,  3  Cush.  352. 

7  Martin  v.  Peck,  2  Yerg.  298. 

^  Cunningham  v.  Souza,  1  Redf.  462. 
9  Shirley  v.  Healds,  34  N.  H.  407,  410. 
10  Rand  v.   Hubbard,  4  Met.    (Mass.) 
252,  258. 


§  187  AUTHORITY   OF   ADMINISTKATOliS.  411 

In  Oregon  the  sale  of  property  by  executors  who  had  not  quali- 
fied was  held  good,  on  the  ground  that  the  legal  estate  was  vested 
in  them  merely  for  the  purpose  of  sale  and  conveyance ;  ^  and  in 
South  Carolina  the  common  law  doctrine  seems  to  be  still  recog- 
nized, according  to  which  the  executor  may,  before  probate,  pos- 
sess himself  of  the  property  of  the  testator,  pay  debts  and  legacies, 
give  releases,  maintain  trespass,  trover,  or  detinue  for  goods  of 
the  estate  in  his  possession,  and  sell,  give  away,  or  otherwise  dis- 
pose of  the  property  of  the  testator.^     Similarly  in  Maine.^ 

§  187.  Authority  of  Administrators  before  Grant  of  Letters.  —  It 
is,  of  course,  inaccurate  to  predicate  any  authority  of  an  adminis- 
trator who  is  shown  by  the  statement  not  to  be  an  administrator ; 
the  phrase  is  employed  to  designate  those  persons  who,  having  a 
legal  preference  or  exclusive  right  to  the  appointment  as  admin- 
istrator, act  for  the  protection  and  in  the  interest  of  the  estate 
in  anticipation  of  such  appointment.  The  principle  upon  which 
the  acts  of  an  executor  are  validated  upon  subsequent  probate 
of  the  will  or  grant  of  letters  testamentary  is  extended  to  admin- 
istrators, and  has  been  enlarged  upon  in  an  earlier  chapter  treat- 
ing of  the  nature  of  the  title  of  executors  and  administrators.^ 
The  decisive  test  to  ascertain  whether  the  acts  done   .  .  ,  . 

Acts  before 

before  appointment  are  legalized  or  ratified  by  the  appointment 
subsequent  grant  of  administration  is  whether  such  valid  after  ap- 
acts  would  have  been  valid  had  he  been  the  rightful  kgaiiTed  by  ^ 
administrator  ;  5  the  consequences  both  to  the  person  grant  of*''''^ 
acting  and  to  the  estate  must  be  the  same  as  if  he  ^^"^'■*- 
had  been  legally  in  charge  of  the  estate.^     The  doctrine  is  stated 

1  Hogan  V.  Wyman,  2  Greg.  302,  304.  3  Hathorn  v.  Eaton,  70  Me.  219,  220. 

2  Magwood  V.  Legge,  Harp.  116,  119.  *  Ante,  ch.  xviii.  §§  172,  173,  and 
It  is  held  in  this  case  that  any  act  which     authorities  there  cited. 

would  constitute  him  executor  cle  son  tort,  5  Outlaw  r.  Farmer,  71  N.  C.  31,  35; 
as  taking  possession  of  the  goods  and  con-  Bellinger  r.  Ford,  21  Barb.  311,  314,  and 
verting  them  to  his  own  use,  or  disposing  authorities  cited  there ;  Gilkey  v.  Haniil- 
of  them  to  another,  etc.,  is  evidence  of  the  ton,  22  Mich.  283,  280  ;  Haselden  v.  White- 
executor's  acceptance  of  the  trust:  p.  119;  sides,  2  Strobh.  353;  McClure  v.  People, 
but  in  a  later  case  it  is  said  that,  when  19  111.  App.  105. 

executors  are  appointed  to  sell  and  con-  c  Tucker    v.   Whaley,   11   R.   I.   543, 

vey  lands,  a  neglect  to  qualify  is  prima  holding  a  person  who  bought  hay  to  feed 

/«c-/e  evidence  of  a  refusal  to  act,  and  will  the  stock  of   a  decedent,  and   who  was 

validate  a  sale  made  by  the  acting  exec-  afterward  appointed  administrator,  liable 

utors  :  Uldrick  v.  Simpson,  1  S.  C.  283,  as  administrator  personally.     An  action 

280.     It  is  so  held  in  Tennessee  :  Drane  commenced  by  an  administrator  before 

I'.  Bayliss,  1  Humph.  174 ;  Robertson  v.  his   appointment  must   necessarily    fail : 

Gaines,  2  Humph.  367,  381.  Gatfield  v.  Hanson,  57  How.  Pr.  3-31. 


412        WHAT  MAY  BE  DONE  BEFORE  PROBATE.      §  187 

to  be,  that  the  title  to  the  personal  property  of  a  decedent  is  in 
abeyance  until  his  executor  qualifies,  or  an  administrator  is  ap- 
pointed, when  it  vests  in  him  by  relation  from  the  time  of  the 
death.i  It  has  already  been  pointed  out,  that  this  doctrine  is  a 
fiction  of  the  law  to  prevent  injustice  and  injuries  to  estates,  and 
will  never  be  resorted  to  where  it  might  unjustly  affect  the  rights 
of  innocent  parties  intervening,  or  to  recognize  or  validate  un- 
authorized acts  in  prejudice  of  the  estate.^  The  status  of  an  exec- 
utor or  administrator  acting  before  grant  of  probate  or  letters  is 
very  similar  to  that  of  an  executor  de  son  tort,  and  it  will  become 
necessary  again  to  allude  to  the  principle  upon  which  their  acts, 
though  unauthorized  at  the  time  of  commission,  become  valid  and 
binding  upon  the  estate  by  the  grant  of  letters  to  them.^ 

1  Per    Smith,  J.,   in   McDearmon   v.  2  Ante,  §  173,  and  authorities. 

Maxfield,  38  Ark.  631,  636,  citing  i.  a.  3  See  post,  eh.  xxl.  §  188  et  seq. 

Rattoon  v.  Overacker,  8  John.  126 ;  Priest 
V.  Watkins,  2  Hill,  (N.  Y.)  225. 


§188  DEFINITION.  41i 


CHAPTER  XXL 

OF   EXECUTORS   DE   SON   TORT. 

§  188.  Definition.  —  The  common  law  doctrine  ascribing  to  an 
executor  authority  to  act  without  first  qualifying,  or  going  through 
any  ceremony  of  authentication  or  induction  into  office  whatever 
which  might  serve  as  notice  to  the  public  of  his  official  character, 
has  given  rise  in  the  English  law  to  what  Mr.  Schouler  terms 
"  an  official  name  to  an  unofficial  character ;  styling  as  executor 
de  son  tort — executor  in  his  own  wrong  —  whoever  should  offi- 
ciously intermeddle  with  the  personal  property  or  affairs  of  a 
deceased  person,  having  received  no  appointment  thereto."  ^  The 
theory  of  holding  an  intermeddler  liable  in  the  charac-  Theory  of  the 
ter  which  he  has  himself  voluntarily  assumed,  is  not  ecutor"^e*soK^" 
unjust  to  him,  and  may  be  necessary  to  the  protection  '<"■'• 
of  the  interests  of  creditors,  heirs,  and  legatees  of  the  deceased 
person,  not  only  because  strangers  may  naturally  conclude  that 
the  person  so  acting  has  a  will  which  he  has  not  yet  proved, ^  but 
for  the  substantial  reason  that,  by  holding  him  liable  in  the  as- 
sumed character,  the  remedy  of  parties  injured  is,  at  least  at  com- 
mon law,  much  simplified,  and  circuity  of  action  avoided.  The 
harshness  of  the  doctrine,  which  is  complained  of  by  American 
writers,  is  not  apparent  from  the  common  law  standpoint ;  and  in 
some  of  the  States  unauthorized  intermeddling  with  the  estate  of 
a  deceased  person  is  more  severely  punished  than  at  common 
law.^  However  inapt  the  term  and  incongruous  the  gjijj  recognized 
doctrine  may  be  in  America,*  it  is  certainly  an  essen-  i"  "^''st  states. 

1  Schoul.  Ex.  §  184.  common  law,  coextensive  with  the  value 

2  "  And  in  all  actions  by  creditors  of  the  property  converted  ;  in  Xew  Hamp- 
against  such  an  officious  intruder,  he  shall  shire  it  is  double  such  value;  in  some 
be  named  an  executor,  generally  ;  for  the  other  States  a  penalty  is  superadded  to 
most  obvious  conclusion  which  strangers  the  liability. 

can  form  from  his  conduct  is,  tiiat  he  hath  ••  See  post,  §  198,  where  the  States  are 

a   will  of  the   deceased,   wherein   he   is  mentioned  in  which  the  doctrine  is  not 

named  executor,  but  hath  not  yet  taken  in   force.      Mr.    Schouler   (supra)  says  : 

probate   thereof":    2  Bla.   Comm.   507,  "This  designation  is  inapt,  since  it  applies 

citing  5  Kep.  31 ;  12  Mod.  471.  the  term  '  executor  '  as  well  to  intestate  as 

8  The  liability  of  an  executor  is,  at  to  testate  estates,  and  signifies,  moreover, 


414 


EXECUTORS   DE   SON   TORT. 


§188 


tial  element  of  the  law  of  administration  in  most  of  the  American 
States,  being  recognized  as  in  full  force  in  Alabama,^  Connecticut,^ 
Delaware,^  District  of  Columbia,*  Georgia,^  Illinois,*^  Indiana,'^ 
lowa,^  Kentucky,^  Louisiana,^'^  Maine,^^  Maryland,^^  Massachu- 
setts,^^  Michigan,^*  Mississippi,^^  Missouri,!^  New  Hampshire,^^ 
New  Jersey ,^^  New  York,^^  Pennsylvania,^^  North  Carolina,^^  South 
Carolina,^^  Tennessee,^^  and  Virginia.^*  It  is  therefore  important 
Unauthorized  to  define  the  acts  of  intermeddling  which  make  one 
whh'property  liable  in  sucli  Statcs,  as  executor — or,  as  is  some- 
of  deceased       timcs  Cparticularlv  in   Iowa)   said,  administrator  — 

persons  creates  ^^  •'  --^  ' 

liability.  c^g  sOTl  toH. 

The  general  definition,  as  given  by  Swinburne,  Godolphin, 
and  Wentworth,  is  in  these  words :  "  He  who  takes  upon  him- 
self the  office  of  executor  by  intrusion,  not  being  so  constituted  by 
the  deceased,  nor,  for  want  of  such  constitution,  substituted  by 
the  court  to  administer."  ^5  Mr.  Williams  says  :  "  If  one  wlio  is 
neither  executor  nor  administrator  intermeddles  with  the  goods  of 
the  deceased,  or  does  any  other  act  characteristic  of  the  office  of 
executor,  he  thereby  makes  himself  what  is  called  in  the  law  an 
executor  of  his  own  wrong,  or,  more  usually,  an  executor  de  son 


that  the  person  who  intended  his  services 
had  no  legal  authority  in  any  sense." 
Mr.  Redfield  (3  Redf.  on  Wills,  p.  21, 
note  6)  says  :  "  The  American  courts  have 
sometimes  held  such  persons  Uable  to  an 
action  at  the  suit  of  creditors  of  the  estate. 
But  there  has  always  been  manifested  a 
marked  disposition  here  to  narrow  the 
range  of  such  responsibility,  and  virtually 
to  expunge  the  term  from  the  law.  It  is, 
in  itself,  a  subject  resting  upon  no  just 
basis  of  correlative  rights  and  responsi- 
bilities, but  operates  chiefly  in  the  nature 
of  a  penalty  for  intermeddling  with  the 
estates  of  deceased  persons.  We  have 
devoted  no  space  to  the  topic,  in  this 
work,  because  it  is  so  nearly  obsolete  in 
the  American  courts  that  it  would  seem 
unjust  to  the  profession  to  tax  them  with 
the  expense  of  what  is  only  speculatively 
useful,  when  so  much  which  is  practically 
so  has  to  be  omitted." 

1  Simonton  v.  McLane,  25  Ala.  353. 

2  Bennett  v.  Ives.  30  Conn.  329. 

3  Wilson  V.  Hudson,  4  Harr.  168. 

4  Peters  i;.Breckenridge, 2  Cr.C.C. 518. 

5  Barron  v.  Burney,  38  Ga.  201. 


6  McClure  v.  People,  19  III.  App.  105, 
107. 

■^  Brown  v.  Sullivan,  22  Ind.  359. 
^  Elder  v.  Littler,  15  Iowa,  65. 
9  Brown  v.  Durbin,  5  J.J.  Marsh.  170. 
1°  Succession  of  Mouton,  3  La.  An.  561. 

11  White  V.  Mann,  26  Me.  361. 

12  Neale  v.  Hagthorp,  3  Bland  Ch.  551, 
565;  Baumgartner  v.  Haas,  68  Md.  32. 

I'J  Mitchel  ('.  Lunt,  4  Mass.  654. 

n  Damouth  v.  Klock,  29  Mich.  289. 

15  Hunt  V.  Drane,  32  Miss.  243 ;  Ellis 
V.  McGee,  63  Miss.  168. 

!*>  Foster  v.  Nowlin,  4  Mo.  18 ;  but  see 
Rozelle  v.  Harmon,  29  Mo.  App.  569,  582. 

1'  Emery  v.  Berry,  28  N.  H.  473. 

18  Parker  v.  Thompson,  30  N.  J.  L.  311. 

19  ScoviUe  V.  Post,  3  Edw.  20-3.  But  in 
this  State  the  office  of  executor  c?e  son  tort  is 
now  abolished  by  statute  :  2  Rev.  St.  440, 
§  17  ;  Banks  &  Bro.,  7th  ed.,  p.  2395,  §  17. 

2J  Crunkleton  t).  Wilson,  1  Browne,  361. 

21  Bailey  v.  Miller,  5  Ired.  L.  444. 

22  Hubble  V.  Fogartie,  3  Rich.  413. 

23  Mitchell  V.  Kirk,  3  Sneed,  319. 
21  Hansford  v.  Elliott,  9  Leigh,  79. 
25  Schoul.  Ex.  §  184,  note  (1). 


§189 


ACTS   WHICH   CllEATE   THE   LIABILITY. 


415 


tort"  ^  In  New  Hampshire,  where  the  statute  makes  an  intermed- 
dler  liable  in  double  the  value  of  the  property  intermeddled  with, 
the  rule  is  laid  down,  that  "all  aets  which  assume  any  particular 
control  over  the  property,  without  legal  right  shown,  will  make  a 
person  executor  in  his  own  wrong,  as  against  creditors.  Any  act 
which  evinces  a  legal  control,  by  possession,  direction,  or  other- 
wise, will,  unexplained,  make  him  liable."  ^ 

§  189.  Acts  which  create  the  Liability.  —  Very  slight  circum- 
stances of  intermeddling  with  the  goods  of  a  deceased  person  will 
make  one  liable  as  executor  de  son  tort.  Mr.  Williams  alludes  to 
some  ancient  cases  in  which  the  milking  of  a  cow  by  Milking  a  cow; 
the  widow,  taking  a  dog,  a  bedstead,^  a  Bible,*  were  taking  a  dog,  a 

'  ^  '="  .  bedstead,  a 

held  sufficient,  as  indicia  of  being  the  representative  of  Bible; 

the  deceased.^      Killing  the  cattle,^  using,  selling,  or  killing  cattle, 

"  '  .  .  using,  selling, 

giving  away  the  goods,"  or  taking  them  in  satisfaction  or  giving  away 

the  goods* 

of  a  debt  or  legacy,^  will  render  one  liable  as  executor    ,  , .        ' ,  . 

*      •' '  taking  goods  m 

de  son  tort.     The  wife  of  the  deceased  taking  more  ap-  satisfaction  of  a 

,       .  •  1     1         n  ...  fiebt  or  legacy ; 

parel  than  she  is  entitled  to,^  or  continuing  in  posses-  taking- apparel- 
sion  of  his  goods  and  using  them  as  her  own,!*^  and  a  widow  retain- 
daughter  carrying  on  the  business  with  them,^^  is  lia-  imfoLn^d;^  ° 


1  Wms.  Ex.  [257]. 

2  Emery  v.  Berry,  28  N.  H.  473,  483, 
citing,  as  sustaining  the  position  an- 
nounced, 2  Bac.  Abr.  387  ;  5  Coke,  33  b  ; 
Edwards  v.  Harben,  2  T.  R.  587,  597; 
Padget  V.  Priest,  2  T.  R.  97  ;  Campbell  v. 
Tousey,  7  Cow.  64  ;  White  v.  Mann.  26 
Me.  361 ;  Wilson  v.  Hudson,  4  Harr.  168; 
Hubble  V.  Fogartie,  SRich.  413  ;  1  Saund. 
265,  note. 

2  Robbin's  case,  Noy,  69. 

*  Toller,  38. 

6  Schouler  deems  it  absurd  that  the 
milking  of  a  cow  by  the  widow  of  the 
deceased  should  expose  her  to  the  lia- 
bility of  executrix  de  son  tort,  not  on 
account  of  the  trivial  nature  of  the  trans- 
action, but  because  milking  was  in  the 
interest  of  the  estate,  —  as  conducing  to 
the  health  of  the  cow,  and  saving  a  per- 
ishable commodity  for  account  of  a  rep- 
resentative subsequently  appointed.  It 
is  probable,  however,  that  the  milking 
was  not  in  the  interest,  but  to  the  depri- 
vation, of  the  estate,  because  acts  of  kind- 
ness   and   charity  never  subjected    any 


one,  even  in  the  times  of  Godolphin, 
Dyer,  and  Wentworth,  who  report  the 
above  cases,  to  the  hazard  of  executor- 
ship de  son  tort.  And  the  trivial  acts 
complained  of  were  probably  looked 
upon  as  an  indication  of  the  wrong,  — 
the  straw  moved  by  the  wind,  —  not  as 
the  wrong  itself,  unless  tl:e  articles  men- 
tioned were  of  more  than  ordinary  value. 

•5  Godolphin,  pt.  2,  c.  8,  s.  4. 

'  Gilchrist,  J  ,  in  Leach  v.  Pillsbury, 
15  N.  H.  187,  139,  citing  Read's  Case,  5 
Coke,  34,  and  Mountford  v.  Gibson,  4  East, 
441.   See  Baumgartner  ;•.  Haas,  68  Md.  32. 

8  Ewing,  J.,  in  Stephens  v.  Rarnett,  7 
Dnna,257,  262,  citing  Bethel  r.  Stanhope, 
1  Cro.  Eliz.  810.  See  also  Bacon  c.  Parker, 
12  Conn.  212,  216. 

9  Wms.  Ex.  [258],  citing  Stokes  v. 
Porter,  Dyer,  166  ft;  1  Roll.  Abr.  918; 
Wentw.,  c.  14,  p.  325,  14th  ed. ;  Godolph., 
pt.  2,  c.  8,  s.  1 ;  Swinb.,  pt.  4,  s.  23. 

1'^  Madison  v.  Shnckley,  41  Iowa,  451 ; 
Hawkins  v.  Johnson,  4  Blackf.  21,  22. 

"  Hooper  v.  Summersett,  Wightw.  16, 
as  cited  by  Wms.  Ex.  [2-59]. 


416  EXECUTORS  DE  SON  TORT.  §  190 

husband  retain-  ]j[q  as  executrix  de  son  tort ;  ^  and  so,  it  seems,  is  a 

ing  goods  of  ,„.,,.,., 

wife.  husband  who  retains  possession  oi  his  deceased  wile  s 

property,  which  she  held  jointly  with  the  next  of  kin  of  her  for- 

Not  in  respect    mer  husband.^     Although  there  can  be  no  exccutor- 

'*"'^'     .      ship  <ie  son  tort\f\t\\  respect  to  lands,  because  inter- 

nor  of  teiTn  in  ^  *  ^ 

reversion;         fercnce  therewith  is  a  wrong  to  the  heir  or  devisee,^  nor 

of  a  term  of  years  in  reversion,  because  it  is  incapable  of  entry .^ 

Entry  upon  the  land  leased  to  the  decedent  and  pos- 

but  entrv  upon  •  i  •      ^ 

leasehold  in  scssiou  claiming  the  particular  estate  constitutes  a  tort 
createTthe  cxccutor  of  a  term  for  years.''^  So  the  heirs  of  a  mort- 
labi  ity.  gagee  who  had  not  taken  possession  were  held  liable 

as  executors  de  son  tort  for  entering  to  foreclose,  and  taking  the 
rents  and  profits,  to  the  extent  of  the  rents  received.^ 

Demanding  and  receiving  the  debts  of  the  deceased,'''  or  making 
acquittances  for  them,  is  such  intermeddling  as  to  create  the  lia- 
bility of  executor  de  son  tort ;  or  even  paving  the  de- 

Collecting  *'  i  .   "      -ii  a  r 

debts  due  to      Cedent's  debts,  or  the  fees  for  proving  his  will,^  out  of 
the  estate ;  ^  likewise,  if  a  man  sue  as  executor,  or  to 
an  action  brought  against  him  as  such  pleads  in  that  character.i*^ 

§  190.  Status  of  the  Person,  and  other  Circumstances  fixing  the 
Liability.  —  Mr.  Williams  cites  an  English  case  in  which  it  was 
Master  and  ^^^^  that,  if  a  man's  servant  sells  the  goods  of  the  de- 
servant,  or        ceased,  as  well  after  his  death  as  before,  by  the  direc- 

principal  and  .  .       ,.,.(.. 

agent,  may        tiou  of  the  dcccased  given  in  his  lifetime,  and  pays 

both  be  liable       ,,  ..  .,  o  •j_j_ii         i         xi* 

as  executors  the  moucy  arising  thereirom  into  the  hands  oi  his 
de  son  tort.        niastcr,  tliis  makes  the  master,  as  well  as  the  servant, 

^  The  widow  was  held  not  liable  in  *  Wms.  [258],  citing  Kenrick  v.  Bur- 

an  action  at  law  for  a  debt  due  from  the  ges,  Moore,  126. 

estate,   although   she  had   possession   of  ^  Mayor   of    Norwich  v.   Johnson,   3 

some   goods   belonging    to    the    estate  ;  Lev.  35  ;  Garth  v.  Taylor,  1  Freem.  261. 

Chandler    v.   Davidson,   6    Blackf.   367.  ^  They  were  held  liable  to  the  mort- 

And  where  a  wife  in   destitute  circum-  gagor  in  a  bill  to  redeem,  even  after  the 

stances  uses  the  property  of  the  absent  time  for  redemption,  if  they  had  been 

husband   in   the   support  of   his  family,  lawful  executors,  had  expired :   Haskins 

before  any  certain   news  of   his  death,  v.  Hawkes,  108  Mass.  379,  381. 

she  is  not  liable  ;    Brown  v.  Benight,  3  ">  Swift   w.  Martin.   19  Mo.  App.  488, 

Blackf.  39,  41.     See  also  post,  §  191.  489,  492. 

2  Phallon  V.  Honseal,  3  McCord,  Ch.  8  Wms.  [258],  citing  Godolph..  pt.  2, 

423.  c.  8,  §  1  ;  Swinb.,  pt.  4,  §  23. 

"  Nass  V.  Van  Swearingen,  7  S.  &  R.  ^  Paying    the   decedent's    debts   with 

192,  195 ;  King  v.  Lyman,  1  Root,  104 ;  one's   own   money   does   not   make   one 

Mitchel  ?;.  Lunt,  4  Mass.  654,  658;  Claus-  executor  de  son  tort:  Carter  v.  Robbins, 

sen  r.  Lafrenz,  4  G.  Greene,  224 ;  Morrill  8  Rich.  29. 

V.  Morrill,  13  Me.  416.  w  Davis  v.  Connelly,  4  B.  Mon.  136, 140. 


§  190  STATUS   OF   THE    PERSON.  417 

executor  de  son  tort}  So  tlio  agent  of  an  executor  de  son  tort, 
collecting  the  assets  with  a  knowledge  that  they  belong  to  the 
testator's  estate,  and  that  his  principal  is  not  the  legal  repre- 
sentative, may  himself  be  treated  as  an  executor  de  son  tort?  It 
was  held  in  Missouri,  that  a  person  cannot  be  charged  as  an  exec- 
utor of  his  own  wrong,  by  reason  of  acts  done  as  the  agent  or 
servant  of  another;^  but  the  opinion  in  emphatic  terms  dwells  on 
the  innocent  character  of,  the  defendant's  acts,  and  is  hence  con- 
sistent with  the  qualification  to  this  statement  confining  it  to  cases 
where  the  agent  was  not  aware  of  his  principal's  want  of  author- 
ity. In  this  sense  it  is  in  harmony  with  the  English  and  other 
American  cases.* 

Creditors  of  a  deceased  person,  who,  knowing  that  Creditors  who 

r6C G 1 V G  r );l  \*  - 

no  administration  has  been  granted,  receive  payment  ment  of  their 
of  their  claims  from  the  widow,  are  liable  to  the  ad-  the  widow" 
ministrator  subsequently  appointed,  as  executors  de  shlTil'no/afU 
son  tort^    Donees  and  vendees  holding  property  under  ">"nstratrix; 
fraudulent  gifts  or  sales  to  them  are  liable  as  execu-  fraudulent 

^  _  donees  and 

tors  de  son  tort^  to  creditors,  although  they  may  not  vendees. 
be  to  rightful  executors  or  administrators  in  States  in  which  the 
personal  representatives  are  not  permitted  to  avoid  the  fraudulent 
conveyances  of  their  testators  or  intestates.'' 

A  person  acting  under  void  letters  of  administration  has  been 
described  as  an  executor  de  son  tort ;  ^  and  likewise  an  admin- 
istrator ad  colUqendum.  who,  in  excess  of  his  authoritv  tt  • , , 

.    .  .  "      Void  letters  no 

as  special  administrator,  sells  or  disposes  of  any  goods,  relief  against 
even  though  they  were  otherwise  subject  to  perish, 
and  although  his  letters  ad  colligendum  warranted  him  thereto ; 
for  the  judge  himself  could  not  confer  such  authority.^  Administrator 
One  who  administers  upon  the  estate  of  a  fraudulent  assignel^ilabie. 

1  Wms.  [259],  citing  Padget  v.  Priest,  Kimball,  15  Me.  116  ;  Sturdivant  v.  Davis, 
2  T.  R.  97.  9   Ired.  L.  365,  367  ;  Crunkleton  v.  Wil- 

2  Sharland  v.  Mildon,  5  Hare,  468  ;  son,  1  Browne,  361,  .364  ;  Clayton  v. 
Ambler  v.  Lindsay,  L.  R.  3  Ch.  D.  198,  Tucker,  20  Ga.  452,  464 ;  Warren  v.  Hall, 
206;  Turner  v.  Child,  1  Dev.  L.  331.  6  Dana,  450,  454. 

3  Magner  v.  Ryan,  19  Mo.  196,  199.  ^  deaton  v.  Lewis,  24  Ga.  209;  Dor- 
*  Givens  v.  Higgins,  4  McCord,  280  ;     sey  v.   Smlthson,  6   Harr.  &  J.  61,  64 ; 

Brown  v.  Sullivan,  22  Ind.  359;  Perkins  Hopkins  v.  Towns,  4  B.  Mon.  124;    Si- 

V.  Ladd,  114  Mass.  420,  428.  montnn  v.  McLane,  25  Aln.  3-")3  ;  Tucker 

5  Mitchell  r.  Kirk,  3  Sneed,  319,  321,  v.  Williams,  Dudley,  (S.  C.)  32o! 
citing  Mountford  v.  Gibson,  4  East,  441.  »  Bradley    v.  Commonwealth,  31   Pa. 

•>  Gleaton  v.  Lewis,  24  Ga.  209 ;  Gar-  St.  522. 
ner  v.  Lyles,  35  Miss.  176,  185;  Allen  v.  »  Wms.  Ex.  [258],  citing  Anon.,  Dyer, 

VOL.  I.  —  27 


418 


EXECUTORS    DE    SON    TORT. 


§191 


assignee,  and  takes  possession  of  the  goods  assigned,  may,  upon 
the  death  of  the  assignor,  be  sued  as  executor  de  son  tort  by  the 
creditors  of  the  latter  ;i  but  such  suit  lies  against  him  only  in  his 
representative  character,  not  personally.^ 

§  191.  Acts  of  Intermeddling  -which  do  not  create  the  Liability. — 
There  are  many  acts  which  a  stranger  may  perform  without  in- 
curring the  hazard  of  making  himself  liable  as  executor  de  son 
tort ;  notably,  all  acts  or  othces  of  mere  kindness  and 
charity,^  and  looking  to  the  preservation  of  the  prop- 
erty.* Mr,  Williams  mentions  such  as  locking  up  the 
goods  for  preservation,^  directing  the  fancral  and  pay- 
ing the  expenses  thereof  out  of  his  own  means  or  out 
of  the  effects  of  the  deceased,^  making  an  inventory  of  his  property," 
feeding  his  cattle,^  repairing  his  houses,  or  providing  necessaries 
Widow  using  for  his  children.^  Where  the  property  left  is  not. 
her'^by^iaw^not  gi^eatcr  iu  amouut  than  is  allowed  by  law  for  the  im- 
liabie.  mediate  support  of  the  family,  a  widow  is  not  liable  as 

executrix  de  son  tort  for  so  using  the  assets  ;^°  and  so  where  the 


Acts  of  charity 
and  kindness, 
and  simple 
preservation 
of  tlie  ))rop- 
erty,  create  no 
liabilit}'. 


256 a;  Wentw.,  c.  14,  p.  324,  14th  ed.  ; 
Godolph.,  pt.  2,  c.  8,  §  1. 

1  McMorine  v.  Storey,  4  Dev.  &  B. 
189,  191  ;  Norfleet  v.  Riddick,  3  Dev.  L. 
221. 

•■i  Alfriend  v.  Daniel,  48  Ga.  154. 

3  Graves  v.  Poage,  17  Mo.  91,  97. 
Says  Judge  Gamble,  in  this  case:  "It 
is  impossible  that  any  person  can  believe 
that  it  was  the  defendant's  duty  to  leave 
the  gold  and  other  effects  upon  the 
ground,  or  in  the  tent  where  Graves  died, 
exposed  to  every  marauder  who  might 
pass  by.  The  Israelites  were  taught  bet- 
ter law  when  they  were  commanded  in 
this  language  :  Thou  shalt  not  see  thy 
hrotlier's  ox  or  his  sheep  go  astray  and 
liide  thyself  from  them  :  thou  shalt  in 
any  case  bring  them  to  thy  brother.  And 
if  thy  brother  be  not  nigh  unto  thee,  or 
if  thou  know  him  not,  then  thou  shalt 
bring  it  unto  thine  own  house,  and  it  shall 
be  with  thee  until  thy  brother  seek  after 
it,  and  thou  shalt  restore  it  to  him  again. 
In  like  manner  shalt  thou  do  with  his 
ass,  and  so  shalt  thou  do  with  his  rai- 
ment, and  with  all  lost  things  of  thy 
brother's." 

■1  "  Whoever  comes  into  possession  of 
any  portion  of  the  personal  property  of 


an  intestate  becomes  responsible  for  it 
to  the  administrator  when  appointed.  He 
cannot  safely  deliver  it  to  any  one  else 
than  the  administrator,  or  some  one  who 
shows  a  better  right  to  it  than  himself. 
.  .  .  This  mere  possession  of  the  personal 
property  of  a  decedent,  and  consequent 
duty  to  preserve  and  protect  it,  entitles 
the  possessor  to  the  ordinary  legal  rem- 
edies against  a  mere  wrongdoer  ;  that  is, 
any  one  who  interferes  with  the  prop- 
erty without  a  better  right  "  :  Cullen  v. 
O'Hara,  4  Mich.  132,  136  et  seq.,  with  nu- 
merous authorities. 

5  Wms.  Ex.  [261] ;  Godolph.,  pt.  2, 
c.  8,  §  6 ;  lb.,  §  3,  where  a  man  but  took 
a  horse  of  the  deceased  and  tied  him  in 
his  own  stable  ;  Wentw.  Ex.  325,  14th  ed. 
See  Brown  v.  Sullivan,  22  Ind.  359. 

6  Harrison  v.  Rowley,  4  Ves.  212,  216, 
and  numerous  writers. 

"  Godolph.,  pt.  2,  c.  8,  §  6. 

8  Ibid.  §  8. 

9  Ibid.  §  6. 

w  Craslin  v.  Baker,  8  Mo.  437,  441. 
This  case  was  decided  before  the  enact- 
ment of  the  statute,  similar  in  effect  to 
statutes  passed  in  other  States,  author- 
izing the  probate  court  to  dispense  with 
administration  in  such  cases. 


§  192  INTERMEDDLING    NOT   CREATING    LIABILITY.  419 

widow  supports  the  family  of  one  absent  from  home  before  cei-tain 
news  of  his  death  ;^  or,  being  compelled  to  vacate  the  premises, 
moves  the  furniture,  partly  to  an  auction- room  to  l)0  sold,  and 
partly  to  another  house  to  be  used  by  her,  with  the  intention  of 
accounting  to  a  proper  representative  ;2  or  where  she  appropriates 
the  wearing  apparel,  of  less  value  than  debts  which  she  paid.^ 
Courts  sometimes  refuse  to  hold  one  lialjle  as  executor  de  son 
tort  who  in  good  faith  interferes,  paying  debts  and  assisting  the 
beneficiaries  of  the  estate.* 

The  purchaser  from  an  executor  de  son  tort  does  not  by  his 
purchase  become  executor  de  son  tort  himself;*^  and  Purchaser 

c  T  r    •  I     •  r      •    1        ^rom  an  ex- 

the  possession  of  property  under  a  fair  clann  oi  right  ecutor  r/e  ao« 
docs  not  render  one  liable  as  such  ;^  and  in  such  case  self  liable. 
the  bona  fides  is  a  question  of  fact,  referable  to  the  jury,  and  it 
is  error  for  the  court  to  decide  it.'^ 

No  action  can  be  maintained  against  any  one,  as  executor  de 
son  tort,  who  has  not  interfered  with  personal  property  No  one  liable 
of  a  deceased  person.**     ihe  intermeddling  with  the  himself  inter- 
goods  of  a  partnership  after  the  death  of  one  of  the  no^r  one  inter- 
partners  does  not  constitute  an  executor  de  son  tort,  partnership''^ 
because  such  person  is  liable  to  the  surviving  part-  effects; 

^  or  nor  for  setting 

ner;^  nor  for  setting  up  a  claim  against  goods  of  the  up  a  claim 

-,      ,         f       .     .       .  ,,     .  ,        ,„  P        asrainst  the 

intestate,  and  thereby  injuring  their  sale  ;  ^"  nor  tor  estate. 
paying  money  found  upon  the  person  of  the  deceased  to  his  ad- 
ministrator in  another  State.^^ 

§  192.  Coexistence  of  Executor  or  Administrator  de  Jure  and  de 
son  Tort.  —  It  is  sometimes  said  that  at  common  law  the  inter- 
meddling with  the  goods  of  an  estate,  if  probate  or  letters  have 

1  Brown  v.  Benight,  3  Blackf.  39;  Edwards,  5  Ala.  31,3(i;  Claussen  v.  La- 
Chaniller  v.  Davidson,  6  Blackf.  367.  See  frenz,  4  G.  Greene,  2-24  ;  O'Reilly  (-•.  Hen- 
ante,  §  189.  dricks,  2  Sm.  &  M.  388  ;  Debesse  r.  Na- 

2  Peters  v.  Leeder,  L.  J.  47  Q.  B.  573.  pier,  1  McCord,  lOG  ;  Alexander  r  Kelso, 

3  Taylor  v.  Moore,  47  Conn.  278,  tlie  IBaxt  5;  Baumgartneri-.  Haas,  08  Md.  32. 
reason    given    being    that    hy    her   acts  '  "Ward  r  Bevill,  10  Ala.  197,  202. 
the  widow  did  not  injure,  but  benefited,  ^  Hence  the  donee  of  a  voluntary  con- 
tlie  estate.  veyance  of  real  and   personal  property, 

■*  Portraan  i'.  Klemisli,  54  Iowa,  198.  who  disi)o.«ed  of  the  same  during  the  life- 

5  Smith   V.    Porter,    35  Me.   287,  290,  time  of  the  donor,  is  not  so  liable :  Mor- 

citing  9  Ad.  &  El.  365  (probably  a  mis-  rill  v.  Morrill,  13  Me.  415. 

quotation)  ;  Johnson  r.  Gaither,  Harp.  G  ;  ^  Hunt  i\  Drane,  32  Miss.  243;  Palm- 

Nesbit  (,'.  Taylor,  1  Rice.  296.  er  r.  Ma.xwell,  11  Nebr.  598. 

^  Smith  V.  Porter,  supra,  citing  Fern-  i*  Barnard  i-.  Gregory,  3  Dev.  L.  223. 

ings  V.  Jarrat,    1   Esp.  335  ;   Densler  v.  ii  Nisbet  v.  Stewart,  2  Dev.  &  B.  L.  24. 


420  EXECUTOES    DE   SON   TORT.  §  193 

At  common  been  granted,  does  not  constitute  the  intermeddlcr 
!Hing"wiXef-"  ^^  executor  de  son  tort^  because  creditors  may  bring 
fects  in  custody  their  action  against  the   riglitful  reiDresentative,  and 

ot  an  executoi-  "  o  i  ■> 

or  administra-    the   intermcddlcr   is   liable   as   a   trespasser.^      This 

tor  crCtittis  no 

liability  as  ex-  statement  is  to  be  understood  as  simply  affecting  the 
^w"  °biit*^aTa  remedy  against  one  who  interferes  with  the  effects  or 
trespasser.  property  of  an  estate  in  the  hands  of  a  legally  con- 
stituted executor  or  administrator ;  the  interference  is  a  trespass, 
^  .  ,      and  punishable  as  such.^    But  the  liability  as  executor 

Existence  of  '  .  •' 

a  rightful  ex-     de  SOU  tort  is  uot  cxcludcd  by  the  fact  that  there  is  a 

Gcutor  clo6s 

not  exclude  lawful  representative  of  the  estate.  Where  a  fraudu- 
executor'*rfe  ^^nt  grantee  is  in  possession  of  property  conveyed  to 
son  tort.  j^jj^  ^jj  derogation  of  the  rights  of  creditors,  or  has 

become  liable  by  reason  of  having  disposed  of  such  property  after 
the  grantor's  death,  the  rightful  executor  or  administrator  can- 
not, in  many  if  not  most  of  the  States,  proceed  against  the 
grantee  ;  the  fraudulent  transaction  being  good  as  against  the 
grantor  and  all  claiming  through  him.  In  such  States  the  remedy 
of  the  creditors  is  against  such  grantee  as  executor  de  son  tort, 
although  there  be  a  lawful  executor.^  And  it  is  stated  by  Wil- 
liams, that  "  though  there  be  a  lawful  executor  or  administrator, 
yet  if  any  other  take  the  goods  claiming  them  as  executor,  or  pays 
debts  or  legacies,  or  intermeddles  as  executor,  in  this  case,  because 
of  such  express  claiming  to  be  executor,  he  may  be  charged  as 
executor  of  his  own  wrong,  although  there  were  another  executor 
of  right."* 

§  193.  Nature  of  the  Liability  of  Executors  de  son  Tort.  —  An 
Executor  de  cxecutor  de  son  tort  has  all  the  liabilities,  though  none 
toVe' rightful  of  ^^6  privileges,  that  belong  to  the  character  of  exec- 
adminTstra-       utor.^     He  is  liable  to  be  sued  by  the  rightful  executor 

1  Wms.  Ex.  [261],  citing  Anon.,  1  Salk,  Dorsey  v.  Smitlison,  6  Harr.  &  J.  61,  60 ; 
313  ;  Godolph.,  pt.  2,  ch.  8,  §  3.  See  also  Chamberlayne  v.  Temple,  2  Kami.  384, 
McMorine  v.  Storey,  3  Dev.  &  B.  87;  397;  Shields  v.  Anderson,  3  Leigh,  729; 
Bacon  r.  Parker,  12  Conn.  212,  216;  and  Osborne  v.  Moss,  7  Johns  161,  164,  citing 
remarks,  cited  by  Williams,  supra,  of  Ashby  v.  Child,  Styles,  384.  And  see 
Lord  Kenyon,  in  Hall  v.  Elliot,  Peake  authorities  cited  an<e,  §  100,  p.  417,  notes 
M.  P.  C.  86,  87,  and  Sir  T.  Plumer,  M.  R.,  6  and  7. 

in  Tomlin  v.  Beck,  1  Turn.  &  R.  438.  i  Wms.  Ex.  [261],  citing  Read's  case, 

2  Schoul.  Ex.  §  197,  citing  1  Salk.  313,     5  Co.  34,  and  other  authorities. 

supra.  5  Schoul.    Ex.    §    187,    quoting    Lord 

3  Foster  v.  Nowlin,  4  Mo.  18,24;  How-  Cottenham  in  Carmichael  v.  Carmichael, 
land  V.  Dews,  R.  M.  Cliarlt.  383,  387 ;     2  Pliiil.  Ch.  101. 


§  198  NATURE   OF   THE    LIABILITY.  421 

or  administrator,^  by  a  creditor,'-^  or  by  a  legatee  ;3  tor  rroditor, 

'        ''  •'  '^  or  legatee; 

but  not,  it  seems,  to  the  next  of  kin,  so  long  as  any  ^J^^^  {„  „gj.j 
debts  remain  unpaid,^  thougli  otherwise  where  there  ali'^Jy^^'^re 
are  no  debts  owing.^     It  has  also  been  held  that  the  pai^i- 
executor  de  son  tort  cannot  be  called  to  account  before  the  probate 
court ;  ^  and  in  some  of  the  States  he  is  not  answerable  in  a 
direct  action  by  a  creditor  for  the  debt,  but  must  be  proceeded 
against  in  an  action  to  account  for  the  property  intermeddled 
with." 

The  action  by  a  creditor  must  name  him  as  executor  gener- 
ally;^ but  his  liability  is  in  its  nature  essentially  dis-  Action  by  a 
tinct  from  that  of  an  executor  duly  appointed  :  the  ^'"e^iito'"- 
one  is  founded  on  the  principle  of  lawful  authority,  the  other, 
whatever  may  be  the  form  of  the  action  employed,  arises  out 
of  a  wrong  done.^  Hence  the  executor  de  son  tort  cannot  plead 
the  limitation  prescribed  for  actions  against  executors  and  ad- 
ministrators,^*^ but  is  liable  as  executor  of  an  executor  for  the 
debt  of  the  original  testator. ^^  If  there  be  also  a  lawful  ex- 
ecutor, they  may  be  joined  in  the  suit,  or  sued  severally ;  but 
a  lawful  administrator  cannot  be  joined  in  the  suit  with  an 
executor  de  son  tort.^     But  if  the  executor  de  son  tort,  who  be- 

1  Muir  V.   Trustees,  &o.,  3  Barb.  Ch.  ^  ^ee  v.  Gibbons,  14  S.  &  R.  105,  110 
477,  479  ;  Stockton  v.  Wilson,  3  Fa.  129,  et  seq. ;  Bryant  v.  Helton,  66  Ga.  477. 
130;  McCoy  v.  Payne,  68  Ind.  327,  332,           6  Per  Tilgliman, . I.,  in  Peebles' Appeal, 
citing  Ferguson  v.  Barnes,  58  Ind.  169 ;  15  S.  &  R.  .39,  41 ;  Power's  Estate,   14 
Shaw  V.  Hallihan,  46  Vt.  389,  393.  Phila.  289.     The  reason  given  is  that  an 

2  Elder  v.  Littler,  15  Iowa,  65 ;  Wnis.  executor  de  son  tort  has  never  acted  un- 
[265],  citing  Webster  v.  Webster,  10  Ves.  der  an  officer  having  jurisdiction,  but 
93;  Ambler  v.  Lindsay,  L.  R.  3  Ch.  D.  under  usurped  authority  onl}-. 

198,  207  ;  Coote  r.  Whittington,  L.  R.  16  1  McCoy  r.  Payne,  68  Ind.  327,  333, 

Eq.  534.     In   Georgia,   where  a  wife  as  citing  Northwestern  Conference  r.  Myers, 

e.xecutrix    de   son  tort   of   her   husband's  36  Ind.  375  ;  Wilson  v.  Davis,  37  Ind.  141 ; 

estate,  having  sold  all  the  personalty  of  Leonard  r.  Blair,  59  Ind.  510, 

the  estate  and  left  the  county  with   it,  *  Brown  r.  Durbin,  5  J.  J.  Marsh.  170, 

sued  on  a  promissory  note  made  to  her  172;  Buckminstcr  f.  Ingham.  Brayt.  116 ; 

individually,  the  defendant  was  allowed  Pleasants  r.  Glasscock,  1  Sni.  &  M.  Ch. 

to  set  off  a  claim  for  medical  services  due  17,  23:  Gregory  e.  Forrester,  1  McCord, 

him  by  the  decedent,  the  plaintiff  being  Ch.  318,  326;  Lee  v.  Chase,  58  Me.  432, 

sole  heir  of  her  husband  and  having  no  435. 

property    of   her    own    wiiich    could    be  ^  Brown  r.  Leavitt,  26  N.  H.  493,  495. 

reached:    Harwood  v.   Andrews,  71   Ga.  ^^  Brown  r.  Leavitt,  s«/)ra. 

784.  "  Meyrick  r.  Anderson,  14  Ad.  &  El. 

3  Hansford  i\  Elliott,  9  Leigh,  79,  85.  (Q.  B.)  719,  725. 

*  Lee  r.  Wright,  1  Rawle,  149,  150;  12  w'ms.  Ex.  [266],  citing  Wentw.  328, 
Mnir  v.  Trustees,  &-c.,  3  Barb.  Ch.  477  ;  14th  ed. :  Godolph..  pt.  2,  c.  8,  §  2 ;  Com. 
Leacli  c.  Pillsbury,  15  N.  H.  137,  139.  Dig.  Administrator,  c.  3. 


422  EXECUTORS  DE  SON  TORT.  §  194 

came  such  by  reason  of  holding  property  fraudulently  granted 
to  him  by  the  deceased,  is  afterward  appointed  administrator, 
the  creditor  has  his  election  to  charge  him  as  executor  or  as 
administrator.^ 

If  the  executor  de  son  tort  should,  to  a  suit  by  a  creditor,  plead 

ne  unques  executor,  the  issue  would,  on  proof  of  acts  constituting 

him  executor  de  son  tort,  be  found  against  him,  and 

Jiid<;;inent  if  ii    i       ji     j    ji  i    •     i-rv 

i)ieaotMe  the  judgment  thereon  would  be  that  the  piamtiii  re- 

^^hrfouncT'  cover  the  debt  and  costs  out  of  the  assets  of  the  tcsta- 
against  him.      ^^^,^  .^.  ^j^^  defendant  have  so  much,  but  if  not,  then 

out  of  the  defendant's  own  goods.^ 

Executors  </e  Exccutors  de  SOU   tort  are   not  allowed  to   retain 

rerain'forTek  ^^^  their  own  debts,^  although  of  superior  degree  to 
own  debts.  ^hat  of  the  creditor  suing  ;  *  nor  is  it  a  defence  that 
he  is  legatee.^ 

§  194.    Extent  of  their  Liability  to   Creditors.  —  The  liability  of 

an  executor  de  son  tort  does  not,  at  common  law,  extend  beyond 

the  goods  which  he  has  administered ;  for  while  he  is 

ExGCutor  cic 

son  tort  uot  not  allowcd,  by  his  own  wrongful  act,  to  acquire  any 
tile  goodr"  benefit,  yet  he  is  protected,  if  he  pleads  properly,  for 
**'"''"'  all    acts    other   than   those    for   his    own   advantage, 

which  a  rightful  executor  might  do.*^     Thus  he  may,  to  an  action 
by  a  creditor,  plead  i^Zewe  administravit,  or  plene  ad- 
ple^eldmtn-     mimstravU  prceter,  etc.,  and  support  this  plea  by  proof 
istravU.  ^^  payment  of  all  just  debts  to  any  other  creditor  in 

equal  or  superior  degree,  as  in  due  course  of  administration ; '  and 

1  Stephens  v.  Barnett,  7  Dana,  257,  Co.  30,  cited  by  Chapman,  C  J.,  in  Carey 
262,  citing  Betliel  o.  Stanhope,  1  Cro.  810.  v.  Guillow,  105  Mass.  18,  21 ;  Turner  v. 

2  On  the  same  ground  upon  which  a  Child,  1  Dev.  L.  331,  333,  citing  Alexan- 
like  judgn^ent  would  go  against  a  right-  der  v.  Lane,  Yelv.  137;  Kinard  v.  Young, 
ful  executor  or  administrator,  if  defeated  2  Rich.  Eq.  247,  252  ;  Partee  v.  Caughran, 
on  the  plea  of  ne  ?(n7!(es,— because  he  9  Yerg.  460;  Shields  v.  Anderson,  3 
wilfully  pleaded  a  false  plea,  —  the  fact  Leigh,  729 ;  Brown  v.  Leavitt,  26  N.  H. 
of  intermeddling  being  as  fully  within  his  493,  497  ;  Baumgartner  v.  Haas,  68  Md.  32. 
knowledge  as  that  of  appointment  in  the  ^  Wms.  [269],  citing  Vernon  v.  Curtis, 
knowledge  of  an  executor  dejurf.  Hub-  2  H.  Bl.  18. 

bell  V.  Fogartie,  1  Hill,  ( S.  C. )  L.  167. 169  ;  ^  Wilbourn  r.  Wilbourn,  48  Miss.  38, 

Campbell   v.   Tousey,   7    Cow.   64,   68  ;  45. 

Peters  v.  Breckenridge,  2  Cr.  C.  C.  518.  ^  Wms.  [267],  and  Perkins's  note  a, 

s  "  For    otherwise,"    says    Williams,  citing  English  and  American  autliorities. 

p.  [269],  "the  creditors  of  the  deceased  See  Brown  v.  Walter,  58  Ala   310,  313. 

would  be  running  a  race  to  take  posses-  ^  Glenn  v.  Smith,  2  Gill  &  J.  493,  513; 

sion  of  his  goods,  without  taking  admin-  Sewall,  J.,  in  Weeks  v.  Gibhs,  9  Mass.  74, 

istration  to  him."     See  Coulter's  case,  5  77 ;  Olmsted  v.  Clark,  30  Conn.  108. 


§  194  EXTENT    OF   THEIR   LIABILITY    TO    CIIEDITORS.  423 

he  is  not  cliarg-cable,  under  such  plea,  beyond  the  assets  which 
came  to  his  hands.i  And  even  after  action  brought  he  may  apply 
the  assets  in  hand  to  the  i)aymcnt  of  a  debt  of  superior  degree, 
and  plead  such  payment  in  bar  of  the  action  ;'^  and  he  may  also 
give  in  evidence,  under  the  same  plea,  that  he  has  delivered  the 
assets  to  the  rightCul  executor  or  administrator  before  action 
brought.^  An  executor  de  son  tort  may  well  plead  ne  unques  exe- 
cutor, and  also  plene  administravit,  and  have  verdict  on  the  latter 
issue  if  unsuccessful  in  the  former."*  He  may  deny  the  authority 
of  the  creditor  to  sue,  as  being  barred  by  limitation ; '"  and  the 
creditor  must  affirmatively  show  that  the  goods  intermeddled 
with  were  such  as  the  creditors  were  entitled  to  have  placed  in  the 
hands  of  an  administrator.*^ 

In  America,  the  liability  of  executors  de  son  tort  is,  in  many  of 
the   States,  fixed   by  statute,   and    is   generally    limited   by  the 
value  of  the  goods  intermeddled  with ;  ^  in  Indiana,^  Liability  of 
Georgia,^   and    North  Carolina,io  a  penalty  is    super-  lon7oT£ed 
added,  and  in  New  Hampshire  it  is  double  the  value  by  statutes. 
of  the  property  intermeddled  with.^i     It  is  self-evident  that,  if  he 
undertake  to  show  the  application  of  the  assets  of  the  deceased 
to  the  payment  of  his  debts,  he  will  not  be  protected  unless  the 
payment  was  made  under  circumstances  which  would  protect  a 
rightful  administrator ;  ^^  hence,  if  he  has  paid  more  than  the  just 
dividend  to  one  or  more  creditors,  he  will  be  liable  to  others,  in 

1  Wms.  [267],  citing  Dyer,  156  h,  mar-  ^  Goff  v.  Cook,  73  Ind.  351;  Kahn  r. 
gin  ;  1  Saund.  265,  note  2,  to  Osborne  v.     Tinder,  77  Ind.  147. 

Rogers  ;  Hooper  v.  Summersett,  Wightw.  "^  Hill  v.  Henderson,  1-3  Sm.  &  :\[.  688; 

21,  per  curiam  ;  Yardley  v.  Arnold,  Carr.  Leach  v.  House,  1  Bai.  42,  43;  McKenzie 

&  M.   434;   Truett    y.    Cummons,   6   111.  r.  Pendleton,  1  Bush.  164;  Cook  r.  San- 

App.  73;  McKenzie  y.  Pendleton,  1  Bush,  ders,   15  Rich.    63;  Kinard   v.   Young,  2 

1(54.  Rich.  Eq.  247;  Elder  v.  Littler,  15  Iowa, 

2  Oxenham  v.  Clapp,  2  B.  &  Ad.  309.  65;  Glenn  v.  Smith,  '2  Gill  &  J.  493,  51-3. 

3  Wms.  |207],  and  authorities.  But  ®  Wilson  v.  Davis,  37  Ind.  141,  145 
theappointmentof  an  administrator  since  (adding  ten  per  centum  to  the  value  of 
the  institution  of  the  suit,  without  aver-  the  property  converted). 

ment  that  the  assets  liave  been  delivered,  ^  Per  McCay,  J.,  in  Alfriend  v.  Daniel, 

is  no  defence:   McMeekin  v.  Hynes,  80  48  Ga.  154,  156. 

Ky.  343.  ^'^  But  the  provision  does  not  apply  to 

*  Blithe  cannot  have  a  separate  trial  every  one  who  may  be  e.xecutor  Jeso/i  ^ort: 

of  each  of  the  pleas  of  non  assumpsit,  ne  Currie  r.  Currie,  ViO  N.  C.  553. 

unques  executor,  and  that  he  never  inter-  "  Bellows   v.    Goodall,    32   N.  H.   97  ; 

meddled  :    Brodnax    v.   Brown,    Dudley,  Gen.  L.  1881,  ch.  195,  §  15. 

(Ga.)   202,  citing  English  authorities  on  i-  See   cases   infra,   §    195,   as   to    the 

pleading.  liability  of  an  executor  de  son  tort  in  a  suit 

s  Brown  v.  Leavitt,  26  N.  H.  493,  497.  by  the  rightful  administrator. 


424  EXECUTORS  DE  SON  TOUT.  §  195 

excess  of  the  amount  of  assets  received,  in  such  amount  as  may 
be  necessary  to  make  up  their  just  proportion.^ 

§  195.  Liability  to  the  rightful  Executor  or  Administrator.  —  The 
liability  of  an  executor  de  son  tort  at  the  suit  of  a  rightful  execu- 
tor or  administrator  ^  is  necessarily  different  from  that  to  a  credi- 
tor, for  this  among  perhaps  other  reasons,  that  the  intermeddling 
with  the  assets  of  an  estate  undei'  legal  administration  involves  an 
element  of  wrong  not  included  in  the  intermeddling  when  there 
is  no  lawful  representative;  viz,  the  infringement  of  the  rights  of 
Executor  (fe  sow  ^hc  cxccutor  or  administrator.^  Hence  to  an  action  by 
tort  cannot        ^jjg  rightful  executor  or  administrator  the  executor  de 

plead  plene  ad-  " 

ministravit,        son  tort  cauuot  plead  in  bar  the  payment  of  debts,  etc. 

etc.,  to  an  ac- 
tion by  the        to  the  value  of  the  assets,  or  that  he  has  given  the 

tor  or  admiu- '  goods  in  Satisfaction  of  the  debts  ;  ^  and  although 
istratov;  under  a  plea  of  the  general  issue,  in  an  action  of  tres- 

pass or  trover  by  a  rightful  executor  or  administrator,  the  pay- 
ments proved  to  have  been  made   by  the  executor  de  son  tort 
amount  to  the  full  value  of  the  goods,  yet  there  must  be  judgment 
for  at  least  nominal  damages.^     He  may  prove,  how- 

but  mav  prove  ,    '='  ,  ... 

payments  of  evcr,  uudcr  the  general  issue,  in  mitigation  of  dam- 
iication  of  agcs,  payments  made  by  him  in  the  rightful  course  of 

amages.  administration,  because  it  is  no  detriment  to  the  ad- 

ministrator de  jure  that  such  payments  were  made  by  the  executor 
de  son  tort.^  But,  without  statutory  authority  to  such  effect,  he 
cannot  in  an  action  of  trover  give  in  evidence  payment  of  debts 
to  the  value  of  goods  still  in  his  possession,  but  only  such  as  were 

'  Gay   V.  Lemle,  32  Miss.    309,  312 ;  entitled  to  sliow  that  he  had  administered 

Bennett  v.  Ives,  30  Conn.  329,  3-35.  the  assets,  but  doubts  wjietlier  it  is  to  be 

2  Ante,  §  193.  understood  as  overruling  the  cases  allow- 

3  In  the  American  States  executors  ing  the  defendant  to  recoup  payments  in 
and  administrators  are  generally  allowed  due  course  of  administration  in  mitigation 
a    compensation    in    the    shape   of  com-  of  damages. 

missions    on    the    amount    of    property  ^  Chapman,  C.  J,  in  Carey  v  Guillow, 

administered,  the  deprivation   of   which  105   Mass.    18,   21,    citing    Whiteliall   v. 

may  constitute  an  element  of  wrong  to  Squire,  Carth.   103,    104  ;    Mountford  v. 

them.  Gibson,  supra;  Icely  v.  Grew,  6  Nev.  & 

*  Wms.  [270],  and  English  authorities  Man.  467,  469  note  (a)  ;  see  also  Saam  v. 

there  cited ;  Buchanan,  C.  J.,  in  Glenn  v.  Saam,  4  Watts,  432  ;  Keagan  ;'.  Long,  21 

Smith,  2  Gill  &  J.  493,  513.  Ind.  264,  265;   Tobey  v.   Miller,  .54  Me. 

5  Anon.,    12    Mod.   441;  Lord   Ellen-  480,  482;    Dorsett  v.  Frith,  25  Ga.  537, 

horough,  in  Mountford  v.  Gibson,  4  East,  542  (otherwise  under  the  Code  :  Barron 

441,  447  ;  Woolley  v.  Clark,  5  B.  &  Aid.  v.  Burney,  38  Ga.  264,  268) ;  McConnell  v. 

744,  746,  of  which  case  Mr.  Williams  says  McConnell,  94  III.   295,  298;    Hostler  v. 

that  it  holds  that  the  defendant  was  not  Scull,  2  Hayw.  179. 


§  196  EFFECT  OF  THE  APPOINTMENT.  425 

sold  ;^  and  such  recoupment  is  only  allowed  if  the  assets  are  sufTi- 
cient  to  pay  all  the  debts  of  the  deceased,  because  otherwise  the 
rightful  administrator  would  be  precluded  from  giving  preference 
to  one  creditor  over  another,  which  is  his  privilege  at  common 
law,  and  from  retaining  for  his  own  debt  in  priority  to  other  credi- 
tors of  equal  degree ;  ^  and  where  neither  the  right  to  prefer  nor 
that  of  retainer  exists,  as  in  most  of  the  American  States,  he 
would  be  prevented  ^rom  paying  all  of  the  creditors  their  just 
dividends.^  And  he  cannot,  a  fortiori,  be  allowed  for  debts  volun- 
tarily paid  in  a  State  where  such  voluntary  payment  is  not  a 
proper  credit  in  favor  of  a  rightful  executor  or  administrator.* 

An  executor  de  so7i  tort  who  has  used  the  assets  of  an  estate  in 
the  ])ayment  of  debts,  and  for  the  use  and  benefit  of  those  who 
would  have  been  entitled  to  it  in  due  course  of  administration, 
will  be  protected  in  equity  against  the  suit  of  an  administrator 
appointed  subsequently,  because  the  appointment  of  an  admin- 
istrator under  such  circumstances  is  a  useless  and  expensive 
ceremony.^ 

§  196.    Effect  of  the  Appointment  of  an  Executor  de  son  Tort  upon 
his  previous  tortious  Acts.  —  It  has  already  been  mentioned,  that 
the  grant  of  letters  to  an  executor  or  administrator  relates  back, 
so  as  to  legalize  all  previous  acts  within  the  authority  and  scope 
of  a  rightful  representative.^     This  doctrine  is  obvi- 
ously applicable  to  the  acts  of  executors  de  son  tort  to  an  exfcutor 
who  may  subsequently  obtain  a  grant  of  letters;  for  dateThis'pre-^" 
the  executor  who  was  not  qualified  to  act,  and  the  ^'''*"*  ^'^^^' 
person  who  had  not  been  appointed  administrator,  were  equally 
executors  de  son  tort  if  they  intermeddled.    The  intermediate  acts, 
which  were  tortious  or  unlawful  for  the  want  of  competent  author- 
ity before  appointment,  become,  by  relation,  lawful  acts  of  admin- 
istration,  for   which   the   actor   must   account;   the   liability   to 
account  involves  a  validity  in  his  acts  which  is  a  protection  to 

1  Hardy  v.  Thomas,  23  Miss.  544,  546.  of  the  widow  and  family  is  a  good  defence : 
citinor  Bulier's  Nisi  Prius,  48  ;  Lomax,  Ex,  Barron  v.  Biirney,  38  Ga.  '204,  208 :  Cris- 
3'J3,  ;S()4.  pin  ,..  Winldemnn,  57  Iowa,  523,  520. 

2  Wms.  Ex.  [271],  citing  English  au-  5  Brown  v.  Walter,  58  Ala.  310,  313, 
thorities.  citing  Vanderveer  v.  Alston,  16  Ala.  494, 

3  Neal  V.  Baker,  2  N.  H.  477,  478;  wliich  contains  a  review  of  tlie  history 
Tohey  y.  MilliT,  54  Me.  480,  483;  Collier  of  administration  at  common  law  and 
I.  Jones,  86  Ind.  342.  nmler  English  and  Alabama  statutes,  by 

*  Bryant y.  Helton,  60  Ga.  477;  but  the     Chilton,  J. 
retention  of  the  property  for  the  support  «  Ante,  §§  173,  184. 


426  EXECUTORS  DE  SON  TORT.  §  197 

those  who  liave  dealt  with  him.^  So  if,  pendente  lite,  an  executor 
de  son  tort  obtains  administration,  he  may  retain  for  his  own 
debt; 2  and  to  scire  facias  on  a  judgment  against  him,  or  to  an 
action  in  assumpsit,  plead  in  bar  that  he  has  taken  out  letters, 
and  that  the  estate  is  insolvent.^  The  sale  of  i>roperty  or  pay- 
ment of  a  legacy  by  an  executor  de  son  tort  becomes  valid  upon 
probate  of  the  will,  or  subsequent  grant  of  administration,*  and  is 
binding  upon  the  lawful  representative.^ 

It  is,  however,  to  be  observed,  that  only  such  acts  of  the  execu- 
tor de  son  tort  are  legalized  and  made  valid  by  the  subsequent 
Except  such  as  appointment  as  would  have  been  valid  had  he  been 
a'ri.duM'^ '"  tlie  rightful  administrator  ;  ^  and  also  that  the  rights 
executor,  of  inuocent  parties  intervening  must  not  be  affected 

by  the  application  of  the  doctrine  of  relation.' 

There  will  be  occasion  to  show,  hereafter,  that  one  who  has 
made  himself  liable  as  an  executor  de  son  tort  is  not,  for  that 
reason,  disqualified  to  be  appointed  administrator  of  the  estate.^ 

§  197.  Validity  of  the  Title  acquired  by  an  Alienee  from  an  Ex- 
ecutor de  son  Tort.  —  It  would  seem  to  result  from  the  doctrine 
The  bim.a  fide  holding  the  lawful  acts  of  an  executor  de  son  tort  to 
executorl/e"o«  ^c  good,^  that  the  alienation  of  goods  by  him  for  the 
«or<  takes  a        payment  of  debts  is  good  and  indefeasible.^^     Mr.  Wil- 

good  title  at         1^    •'  ° 

common  law.  Hams  gives  as  authority  the  statement  of  Lord  Holt,^^ 
that  a  legal  act  done  by  an  executor  de  son  tort  shall  bind  the 
rightful  executor  and  alter  the  property.^^   This  statement  is  open 

1  Per  Colt,  J.,  in  Hatch  v.  Prootor,  102  May,  2  Hill,  Ch.  22;  Filhour  v.  Gibson, 

Mass.  351,  354;  Magner  v.  Ryan,  19  Mo.  4  Ired.   Eq.  455,  460;  Alvord  v.  Maisli, 

196,200;  Priest  r.Watkins,  2  Hill,  (N.Y.)  12  Allen,  603,  604. 

225  ;  Clements  v.  Swain,  2  N.  H.  475,  476,  6  Antr,  §  187. 

and  authorities ;  Emery  v.  Berry,  28  N.  '^  Napton,  J.,  in  Wilson  v.  Wilson,  54 

H.  473,  484;  McClure  v.  People,  19  111.  Mo.  213,  216. 

App.  105.  s  Selioul.  Ex.  §  196,  citing  Carnoclian 

-  Wms.  [269],  citing  Pyne  v.  Woolland,  v-  Abrahams,  T.  U.  P.  Charlt.  196  ;  Bing- 

2  Ventr.   179,  180;    Wifliamson    w.  Nor-  ham  y.  Crenshaw,  34  Ala.  688. 

witch.  Sty.  837;  Vaughan  v.  Browne,  2  ^  As   announced  in  Coulter's  case,  5 

Stra.  1106.  Co.  30/),  and  authorities  rmfe,  §§  94,  95. 

3  Shillaber  v.  Wyman,  15  Mass.  322;  lO  Graysbrook  v.  Fox,  Plowd.  275,  282. 

Olmsted  v.  Clark,  30  Conn.  108 ;  Andrew  Otherwise  where  the  purchaser  is  not  a 

V.  Gallison,  15  Mass.  325,  note.  creditor  of  the  estate,  or  does  not  take 

*  Wilson  V.  Wilson,  54  Mo.  213,  216;  the  property  in  discharge  of  a  debt  due 

Pinkham  v.  Grant,  78  Me.  158.  him  by  decedent :  Rockwell  v.  Young,  60 

5  Vroom  V.  Van  Home,  10  Pai.  549,  Md.  563. 

558,  citing,  as  establishing  the  same  prin-  ^^  In  Parker  i>.  Kett,  1  Ld.  Raj'm.  661 ; 

ciple,  Whitehall  v.  Squire,  Holt,  45  ;  Witt  S.  C.  12  Mod   471. 

V.  Elmore,  2  Bail.  L.  R.  595;  Walker  v.  ^^  The  reason  giveu  is,  that  creditors 


§  198  APPLICATION    OF   THE    DOCTRINE    IN    AMERICA.  427 

to  the  objection  that  it  does  not  define  what  constitutes  a  "  good  " 
or  "  legal  "  act  by  an  executor  de  son  tort.  Mr.  Williams  proceeds 
to  show  that  only  such  acts  are  understood  to  be  valid,  as  against 
the  true  representative,  whicli  the  true  representative  himself 
would  have  been  bound  to  perform  in  the  course  of  due  adminis- 
tration j^  and  that  it  must  have  been  done  by  one  proved  to  have 
been  acting  at  the  time  in  the  character  of  executor,  —  not  a 
mere  solitary  act  of  wrong,  in  the  very  instance  com{)lained  of,  by 
one  taking  u[)on  himself  to  hand  over  the  goods  of  the  deceased 
to  a  creditor.2  This  principle  implies  that  payment  of  a  debt  to 
an  executor  de  son  tort,  not  acting  in  the  character  of  one  admin- 
istering the  estate,  is  no  protection  against  a  demand  for  the  same 
by  the  lawful  representative.^ 

It  may  be  remarked  in  this  connection,  that,  although  an  execu- 
tor de  son  tort  is  protected  in  what  he  does  in  good  But  the  execu- 
faith  in  the  course  of  the  lawful  administration  of  an  acqufresno"' 
estate  so  far  as  he  has  assets,  yet  he  acquires  no  de-  n,^','yreim- 
mand  against  the  administrator  de  Jure  for  any  dis-  bui-beuieut. 
bursements  by  him  in  excess  of  the  assets.^ 

§  198.  Application  of  the  Doctrine  in  America. — Distinguished 
American  writers  on  this  subject  have  expressed  their  disapproba- 
tion of  the  doctrine  of  liability  as  executor  de  son  tort  ^j  .. 

•'  No  necessity 

in  strong  terms,  and  intimate  that  it  meets  with  little  for  tiie  doctrine 

are  not  bound  to  seek  furtlier  than  liim  the  executrix  de  son  tori,  after  she  has 

who  acts  as  executor.     Mr.  Williams  also  taken  letters  of  administration,  she  is  not 

cites   the   judgment  of  Le  Blanc,  J.,  in  estopped  by  her  previous  act,  and  relying 

Mountford   v.  Gibson,  4  East,  441,  454,  on  tiie  previous  case  of  Cullen  i-.  O'Hara, 

and    of    Littledale,   J.,   in    Oxenham    v.  4  Mich.    132;   Woolfork    v.   Sullivan,  23 

Clapp,  1  B.  &  Ad.  313.  Ala.  548,  555,  holding  that  the  vendee  of 

i  Buckley  v.  Barber,  6  Exch.  164,  183.  an  executrix  de  sou  tort  takes  all  that  siie 

Acts  wiiich  would  be  invalid  if  done  by  has, — the  possession,  —  and  that  he  can 

a  lawful  executor,  cannot  be  valid  when  maintain  it  against  all  the  world  except 

done  by  an  executor  de  son  tort :  Rock-  the  rightful  administrator  in  a  suit ;  Wil- 

well  r.  Young,  60  Md.  563,  5()8.  son  v.  Hudson,  4  Harr.  168,  ilenying  that 

-  Wins.  [272];  Gilchrist,  J  ,  in  Picker-  the  subsequent  appointment  of  the  exec- 
ing  V  Coleman,  12  N.  H.  148,  151,  hold-  utrix  de  son  tort  as  administratrix  gave 
ing  tliat  in  such  case  tiie  rightful  admin-  any  validity  to  her  former  act;  IMitchell 
istrator  may  maintain  trover  against  the  v.  Kirk,  3  Sneed,  319,  in  wliii^h  an  admin- 
vendee ;  Carpenter  v.  Going,  20  Ala.  587,  istratrix  recovered  from  a  creditor  whom 
590,  holding  that  in  an  action  of  trover  she  herself  had  paid  before  appointment, 
by  tlie  riglitful  administrator  the  vendee  8  Leg  v.  Chase,  58  Me.  4-32,  435,  citing 
cannot  prove  in  mitigation  that  tlie  pur-  Hunter  v.  Wallace,  13  Up.  Can.  Q.  B. 
cliase  money  was  used  in  the  payment  of  385  ;  Bartlett  i-.  Hyde,  3  Mo.  490. 
dehf: :  Morton  v.  Preston,  18  Mich.  60,  *  De  La  Guerra  v.  Packard,  17  Cal. 
71,  holding  that  in  an  action  of  trover  by  182,  192. 


428  EXECDTOllS    DE   SON    TORT.  §  198 

of  executor  de    favor  ill  American  courts.^     There  can  be  no  doubt 

son  tort  in 

America.  that  in  many  of  the  American  States,  in  which  the 

common  law  system  of  the  administration  of  the  estates  of  de- 
ceased persons  has  been  entirely  done  away  with,  this  doctrine 
should  disappear  with  the  conditions  which  called  it  into  being. 
There  is  neither  occasion  nor  room  for  it  in  those  States  which 
have  vested  complete  jurisdiction  in  probate  courts  to  control  the 
settlement  of  estates  of  deceased  persons  :  where  the  title  to  the 
personal  property  remains  in  abeyance  until  an  executor  or  ad- 
ministrator is  appointed  by  the  court,  and  any  other  person  under- 
taking to  interfere  with  it  is  known  to  be  without  lawful  authority 
to  do  so ;  where  creditors  of  the  deceased  cannot  be  lawfully  sat- 
isfied out  of  the  property  of  the  estate  until  they  have  proved  their 
claims  in  the  manner  pointed  out  by  the  law ;  and  where  an  exec- 
utor or  an  administrator  can  neither  prefer  a  creditor  nor  retain 
for  his  own  debt.  It  is  quite  apparent  that  in  such  States  it  would 
be  irrational  to  apply  the  doctrine  of  executor  de  son  tort  to  one 
who  unlawfully  appropriates  the  property  left  by  a  deceased  per- 
son, and  thereby  renders  himself  liable  as  a  wrongdoer  to  the  one 
upon  whom  the  law  casts  the  title  :  which,  by  relation,  attaches 
to  him  from  the  time  of  the  decedent's  death.  No  one's  interest 
would  be  subserved:  neither  that  "of  the  creditor,  —  for  he  has  a 
safer,  simpler,  and  less  expensive  remedy  against  a  lawful  admin- 
istrator, and  cannot  pretend  that  he  looked  upon  the  intermcddler 
as  rightfully  in  possession  ;  nor  that  of  the  heir  or  distributee,  — 
whose  safety  is  better  secured  by  the  appointment  of  a  competent 
officer  of  the  court,  whose  duty  it  will  be  to  recover  all  the  prop- 
erty belonging  to  the  estate  and  dispose  of  it  according  to  law ; 
nor  yet  that  of  the  intermcddler  himself,  whose  wrongful  act, 
instead  of  subjecting  him  to  intricate  complications,  the  result  of 
which  it  is  impossible  to  foresee,  will  simply  lead  to  the  punish- 
ment or  reparation  demanded  by  the  law. 

The  office  of  executor  de  son  tort  is  accordingly  abolished  in 
New  York,2  and  declared  by  the  courts  of  Arkansas,^  California,* 

1  3  Redf.  on  Wills,  21,  note  (6)  ;  *  Bowden  v.  Pierce,  73  Cal.  459,  463, 
Schoul.  Ex.  §§  184,  187 ;  Horner,  Pr.  L.  affirmed  in  15  Pac.  R.  64.  The  author- 
§  115 ;  ante,  §  188.  ities  relied  on  seem,  however,  to  contain 

2  Rev.  St.  p.  440,  §  17.  Alluded  to  in  mere  dicta.  See  Valencia  ;'.  Bernal,  26 
Field  w.  Gibson,  20  Hun,  274,  276.  Cal.   328,  .3.35;    Estate  of  Hamilton,   34 

3  Barasien  v.  Odnm,  17  Ark.  122,  127;  Cal.  464.  468  ;  Pryor  v.  Downey,  50  Cal. 
Rust  V.  Witherington,  17  Ark.  129.  388,  400. 


§  198         APPLICATION    OF    THE    DOCTRINE   IN    AMERICA.  429 

Kansas,!  Missouri  ,2  Ohio,^  Oregon*  and  Texas,-^  to  be    .    ,  .^ .    ,  , 
reputi'nant  to  the  letter  and  spirit  of  the  law  of  these  isiied  in  some 

^        ^      T  ,  r,  ,  T      •    •    ,       i  •         1  of  the  States. 

States.^     In  other  States,  whose  administration  laws 
present  the  same  or  similar  features  as  those  above  mentioned, 
neither  the  legislature  nor  courts  have  abolished  the  doctrine, 
at  least  not  in  express  terms;'  but  it  is  gradually  passing  out 
of  notice,  for  the  reason  that  it  meets  no  practical  want.^ 

In  those  States,  however,  in  which  the  common  law  mode  of 
administration  is  still  more  or  less  adhered  to,  —  where,  for  in- 
stance, the  executor  has  power  to  act  before  qualifying,  g^^  gtju  rgg„g. 
and  even  before  probate  of  the  will,  where  he  may  nized  m  others. 
pay  debts  not  proved  before  a  court  or  without  order  of  the  court, 
where  he  is  not  required  to  give  bond,  <tc.,  —  the  doctrine  of  ex- 
ecutor de  son  tort  is  a  natural  and  essential  element  of  their  law. 
The  objection  urged  against  it  by  American  writers,  that  it  sub- 
jects all  of  the  assets  in  the  hands  of  a  wrongdoer  to  the  sat- 
isfaction of  the  claim  of  the  creditor  suing,  and  thus,  to  that 
extent,  defeats  the  just  and  equal  distribution,  is  equally  valid 
against  the  executor  or  administrator  de  jure,  under  the  common 
law,  who,  by  their  preference,  or  liability  to  pay  the  creditors  in 
the  order  in  which  they  bring  their  actions,  likewise  defeat  a  "  just 
and  equal  distribution  "  between  them. 

In  Louisiana  the  common  law  doctrine  of  executor  de  son  tort  is 
not  in  force ;  but  by  statute  one  intermeddling  with  the  estate  of 
a  deceased  person  without  lawful  authority  is  liable  to  both  crim- 
inal and  civil  actions ;  but  there  is  no  civil  liability  until  there  has 
been  conviction  in  a  criminal  prosecution.^ 

1  Fox  V.  Van  Norman,  11  Kans.  214,  it  in  accordance  with  tlie  provisions  of 
217.  tlie  statute  ;    having   for  these  purposes 

2  Rozelle  v.  Harmon,  29  Mo.  App.  569,  tlie  most  summary  and  plenary  powers, 
578.  within  the  scope  of  its  jurisdiction,  con- 

3  Benjamin  v.  Le  Baron,  15  Oh.  517;  ferred  by  the  constitution  and  statutes, 
Dixon  V.  Cassell,  5  Oh.  533.  administering  both  law  and  equity  within 

*  Rutherford  v.  Thompson,  14  Oreg.  this  scope,  according  to  the  exigoncj'  of 

236,  239.  the  rights  to  be  adjudicated  upon." 

5  Ansley  v.  Baker,  14  Tex.  607,  610 ;  "  The  States  in  which  the  doctrine  is 
Green  v.  Rugely,  23  Tex.  539.  recognized  as  still  existing  are  mentioned 

6  Hanley,   J.,  in   Barasien   v.   Odum,  ante,  §  188. 

snnra,  thus  quotes  from  Walker  v.  Byers,  ^  See  remarks  of  Philips,  J.,  in  Ro- 
ll Ark.  246,  252,  as  indicating  the  scope  zelle  v.  Uarmon,  supra.  But  the  case  was 
of  probate  jurisdiction  :  "  The  Probate  referred  to  the  Supreme  Court  on  the  de- 
Court  is  intrusted  with  the  custody  of  mand  of  Ellison,  J  .  holding  it  to  be  in 
estates  ;  and  that  tribunal  proceeds,  in  conflict  with  former  Missouri  cases. 
rem,  to  adjust  the  rights  of  all  persons  ^  Walworth  r.  Ballard.  12  La.  An. 
interested  in  an  estate,  and  disposes  of  245;  Carl  v.  Poelnian,  12  La.  An.  344. 


430  NECESSITY    OF   OFFICIAL   ADMINISTRATION.  S  199 


CHAPTER   XXII. 

OF   THE   NECESSITY   OF   OFFICIAL    ADMINISTRATION. 

§199.  Why  Administration  is  necessary. —  The  necessity  of 
oflicial  administration,  that  is  to  say,  of  obtaining  a  grant  of  let- 
Necessitvof  *^^^  testamentary  or  of  administration,  as  the  case 
administration    j^Q^y  ]^q  ^jj^j  f\■^Q  iudicial  sanction  of  payment  of  debts 

arises  out  of  the  j         ^  j  .        .         .  „ 

vesting  of  per-    and  Icgacics  out  of  tlic  estate  and  the  distribution  of 

Sronal  estate  in  .  ,        n    ,^  i  ii- 

the  executor,  the  rcsidue,  ariscs  out  01  tlie  common  law  doctrme, 
Uy  of  rea'fes-'  that  the  personal  property  of  a  decedent  descends  to 
tate  for  debts,  ^j^^  exccutor  or  administrator,  while  his  real  estate 
descends  to  the  devisees  or  heirs,  subject,  under  English  and 
American  statutes,  to  the  payment  of  his  debts  and  legacies. 
This  doctrine  is  recognized  substantially  in  all  the  States,  except 
Louisiana,  where,  under  circumstances  pointed  out  by  law,  the  title 
to  personal  as  well  as  real  property  descends  directly  to  the  nat- 
ural or  instituted  heirs.  The  direct  consequence  of  this  princii)le 
of  the  law  is,  that  without  due  course  of  administration  the  claims 
of  creditors  cannot  be  lawfully  satisfied,  and  neither  heirs  nor 
legatees  can  obtain  a  legal  title  to  their  legacies  or  distributive 
shares ;  and  that  neither  devisees  nor  heirs  can  hold  the  real 
estate  to  which  they  succeed  free  from  the  claims  of  creditors  of 
the  deceased,  against  whom  limitation  does  not  generally  run  after 
the  debtor's  death,  until  there  be  lawful  administration  of  his 
estate.^  Another  consequence  is,  that  the  payment  of  debts  to  the 
deceased  can  be  coerced  by  no  one  but  the  lawfully  appointed 
executor  or  administrator,  even  in  equity,  because  there  is  no 
privity  between  the  debtors  and  any  person  other  than  the  legal 
representative.^     The  peculiar  status  of  the  executor  de  son  fort, 

1  Posi,  §401.    Even  where  the  statute  tingency  not  happening  on  wliich  they 

of  limitations  is  recognized  as  barring  or-  are  payable  until  a  very  recent  period, 

dinary  debts,  "there  may  be  debts  exist-  He  had  the  capacity  to  incur  such  debts, 

ing  against  him  which  do  not  fall  within  and  it  cannot  be  affirmed  with  certainty 

the  bar  of  the  statute  of  limitations,—  that  they  ilo  not  exist  ":  Brickell,  C.  J., 

defaults  as  executor,  or  as  administrator,  in  Costephens  v.  Dean,  (39  Ala.  385,  .389. 
or  in  some  other  fiduciary  capacity,  or  2  "  Tiie    general    rule   in    a   court    of 

debts  payable  on  a  contingency,  the  con-  equity  is,  that  neither  creditors  nor  dis- 


§  200        CASES    HOLDING    ADMINISTRATION   NECESSARY.  431 

which  at  common  law  follows  the  intermeddling  with  the  estate 
of  a  deceased  person  by  one  not  clothed  with  official  autliority  for 
that  purpose,  and  which  has  been  considered  in  a  preceding  chap- 
ter,^ is  also  a  consequence  of  the  devolution  of  title  to  personal 
property  upon  the  executor  or  administrator,  excluding,  imtil 
administration  be  had,  even  the  distributee,  legatee,  and  creditor, 
and  forcing  upon  the  intcrmeddlcr,  in  protection  of  the  interest 
of  creditors  and  distributees,  the  character  of  a  quasi  executor, 
liable  as  such  to  those  who  have  any  claims  against  the  estate. 

§  200.  Cases  holding  Administration  necessary. — The  question 
whether  administration  is  indispensable  or  not  is  of  frequent 
occurrence,  and  the  decisions  arising  thereunder  are  very  numer- 
ous.    In  a  practical  point  of  view  it  is  never  safe,  j..         ,  , 

1  1  ,  '    It  IS  unsafe  to 

except  in  those  cases  which  will  be  noticed  further  p^v  debts  or 

*  aibtriljiiteresid- 

on,2  to  pay  the  debts  of  a  deceased  person  and  dis-  uum  without 
tribute  the  residuum  among  those  entitled  under  the 
law,  without  complying  with  the  statute  demanding  the  appoint- 
ment of  an  executor  or  administrator,  and  obtaining  the  judgment 
of  the  probate  court  upon  the  questions  arising  in  the  course  of 
administration.     It  is  held  in  various  cases,  respect-  ^        ,  ,,. 

'  ^  States  holding 

ively,  that   neither  heirs  nor   legatees  can  sue  any  that  neither 

*  .  CI  c  heirs  nor  iega- 

person  in  respect  of  the  assets  of  an  estate  but  the  tecs  can  sue 
executor  or  administrator,  nor  legally  distribute  the  exiVntor  or 
estate  between  themselves,  and  that  payment  of   a  «»f^"""'**''»t"''- 
debt  due  the  deceased  to  any  one  but  a  legally  constituted  exec- 
utor or  administrator  will  not  protect  the  debtor  against  the  de- 
mand of  such  representative,  in  Alabama,^  Arkansas,*  California,^ 
Connecticut,^   Georgia,"    Kentucky,^    Illinois,^  Indiana,^*^   lowa,^! 

tributees,  nor  legatees,  can   maintain  a  ^  Taber  v.   Pnckwood,   1   Day,   150  ; 

bill  against  debtors  of  an  estate,  to  sub-  Roorbacli  v.  Lord,  4  Conn.  347,  340. 
ject  debts  tbey  may   owe   to    the  satis-  "  Scranton  v.  Demere,  6  Ga.  92.     But 

faction  of  their  demands  "  :    Dugger  v.  after  an  adverse   possession  for  twenty 

Tayloo,  GO  Ala.  604,  517.  years  or  more,  administration  will  be  pre- 

1  Ante,  cli.  xxi.  snmed  to  protect  an  iimocent  purchaser: 

2  Post,  §  201.  Woodfolk  V.  Beatly,  18  Gn.  .520. 

3  The  decisions  in  this  State  are  very  ^  McCliord  v.  Fisher,  13  B.  Mon.  193, 
numerous  on  this  point :  see  Costephens  195. 

V.  Dean,  69  Ala.  385,  in   which  some  of  »  Leamon  r.  McCubbin,  82  111.  263. 

them  are  cited.  i '  Carr  n.   Huette,  73  Ind.   378.  citing 

*  Flash  r.  Gresham,  86  Ark.  529,  531.  (.    a.    The    Northwestern    Conference   v. 

5  Harwood  r.  Marye,  8  Cal.  580  (hold-  Myers,  36  Ind.  375,  ami  Leonard  v.  Blair, 

ing  tliat  all  property  of  decedents,  both  59  Ind.  510. 

real  and  personal,  goes  into  the  possession  "  Hnynes    v.    Harris,    33   Iowa,    516; 

of  the  administrator).  followed  in  Baird  v.  Brooks,  65  Iowa,  40, 


432  NECESSITY    OF   OFFICIAL    ADMINISTRATION.  §  201 

Maryland,^  Massaclmsetts,^  Mississippi,^  Missouri,^  New  Hamp- 
shire,^ New  York,^  North  Carolina,'  Rhode  Island,^  South  Caro- 
lina,9  Tennessee,^*^  Texas,^^  Wisconsin,!^  and  probably  in  other 
States. 

§  201.  Exceptions  permitted  in  some  States.  —  The  rights  of 
creditors  to  the  assets  of  a  deceased  person  is  the  principal  reason 
for  requiring  official  administration,  and  courts,  therefore,  sanc- 
tion the  disposition  of  the  property  of  a  decedent  without  the 
appointment  of  an  administrator  where  it  is  certain  that  no  debts 
Administration  are  owiug.  Thus,  upou  the  death  of  an  infant  intes- 
heid  ii^injii^^^^  tate,  administration  is  held  unnecessary,  because  an 
of  an  infant.  infant  is  presumed  not  to  have  incurred  any  liability ;  ^^ 
but  not  so  in  the  case  of  the  death  of  a  married  woman  ;i4  and  the 
Unless  he  prcsumption  that  an  infant  has  incurred  no  liability  is 

leaves  a  widow 

or  liaijiiities  on  rcbuttcd  wlicrc  he  was  married  and  leaves  a  widow,^^ 
or  may  be  rebutted  by  proof  of  existing  liabilities ;  ^® 
and  in  such  case  administration  is  necessary,  notwithstanding  the 
statutory  prohibition  of  administration  on  the  estates  of  deceased 
minors  who  were  under  guardianship. 

There  is  a-  series  of  decisions  in  Alabama,  asserting  that, 
when  an  estate  is  entirely  free  from  debt,  the  distributees  may 
in  equity  obtain  distribution  without  the  delay  and  expense  of 
administration;!'  from  which  Brickell,  C.  J.,  deduces  this  rule: 

which  announces  the  rule  that  no  action  lo  Smiley  v.  Bell,  Mart.  &  Y.  378. 

can   be   maintained   by   the    heirs   on   a  "  Alexander  v.  Barfield,  6  Tex.  400, 

promissory  note,  so  long  as  the  time  fixed  404.     But  a  grant  of  administration  after 

by  statute  within  wliich  letters  may  be  a  great  lapse  of  time  should  be  regarded 

granted  has  not  expired.  as  a  nullity,  unless  special  reasons  existed 

1  Hagthorp  v.  Hook,  1  Gill  &  J-  270,  therefor:  Cochran  v.  Thompson,  18  Tex. 
294.  652,  655. 

2  Lawrence  r.  Wright,  23  Pick.  128,  i'  Murphy  v.  Hanrahan,  50  Wis.  485, 
130 ;  Hall  v.  Burgess,  5  Gray,  12,  16.  490. 

3  Marshall  v.  King,  24  Miss.  85,  91,  ^^  Cobb  v.  Brown,  Speers  Eq.  564,  566  ; 
citing  Browning  v.  Watkins,  10  Sm.  &M.  Bethea  v.  McColl,  5  Ala.  308,  315;  Van- 
482,485.  zant  v.  Morris,  25  Ala.  285,  295;  Lyncli 

4  Craslin  v.  Baker,  8  Mo.  4.37 ;  Has-  v.  Rotan,  39  111.  14 ;  McCleary  v.  Menke, 
tings  ;;.  Meyers,  21  Mo.  519;  Bartlett  v.  109  111.  294. 

Hyde,  3  Mo.  490  ;  State  v.  Moore,  18  Mo.  ^*  Cobb  v.  Brdwn,  supra  ;  Patterson  v. 

App.  406.  High,  8  Ired.  Eq.  52. 

4  Tappan  v.  Tappan,  ,30  N.  H.  50,  68.  i^  Norton  v.  Thompson,  68  Mo.  143, 146. 

6  Beecher  i'.  Crouse,  19  Wend.  306.  is  George  v.  Dawson,  18  Mo.  407.     In 

''  Whit  V.  Ray,  4  Ired.  L.  14  ;  Davidson  Kansas  administration  may  be  granted  on 

V.  Potts,  7  Ired.  Eq.  272.  a  minor's  estate:  Wheeler  v.  St.  J.  Rail- 

8  Allen  V.  Simons,  1  Curt.  122.  road,  31  Kans.  640. 

9  Bradford  v.  Felder,  2  McCord,  Ch.  "  Fretwell  v.  McLemore,  52  Ala.  124, 
168,  169.  131,  citing  Vanderveer  v.  Alston,  15  Ala. 


§201 


EXCEPTIONS    PERMITTED    IN    SOME   STATES. 


433 


"  A  coui-t  of  equity  will  dispeiiso  willi  an  adininistra-  in  some  Statps 
tioM,  and  decree  distribntioii  directly,  when  it  affirm-  p?"i;\;ml  S' 
ativelv  appears  that,  if  there  was  an  administrator,  "''';',^"-iiti<)ii  if 
the  only  dnty  devolving  on  him  would  be  distribution,  mains  to  do 
Then  administration  is  regarded  as  '  a  useless  cere-  the  estate. 
mony.' "  i  Most  of  these  cases  expressly  emphasize  that  they 
constitute  exceptions  to  the  general  rule,  and  rest  upon  analogy 
with  the  doctrine  that  equity  will  interpose  where  there  is  collu- 
sion between  the  debtors  and  the  personal  i-cpresentative  ;  or 
where  he  is  insolvent  and  there  is  just  apprehension  of  loss  if  he 
is  permitted  to  collect  the  debts,  or,  as  was  said  by  Chancellor 
Kent,2  "  where  there  is  some  other  special  case  not  exactly  de- 
fined,"^ and  courts  of  eriuity  refuse  their  aid,  unless  the  case  very 
clearly  shows  that  an  administrator  would  be  superliuous.^  The 
same  doctrine,  holding  administration  unnecessary  when  there 
are  no  debts  of  the  estate,  but  only  distribution  to  be  made  to 
those  entitled,  and  for  the  same  reason,  is  applied  in  other 
States;  for  instance,  in  Georgia,^  Indiana,^  Illinois,''  Louisiana,^ 
Michigan,^  Mississippi,^*'  Nevada,'^  New  Hampshire,^^  Pcnnsylva- 


494 ;  Frowner  v.  .Joltnson,  20  Ala.  477, 
482  ;  Plunkett  v.  Kelly,  22  Ala.  G55  ,  and 
Marsliall  v.  Crow,  21)  Ala.  278. 

1  Fretvvell  v.  McLemore,  supra,  qiiotinii 
the  last  phrase  from  the  earlier  Alabama 
cases  cited. 

'^  In  LnnjT  r.  Majjestre,  1  John.  Ch.305. 

8  See  Brickcli,  C.  J.,  in  Costepliens  r. 
Dean,  69  Ala.  385,  388,  quoting  from 
Duggrer  V.  Tayloe,  60  Ala.  504. 

•1  Marshall  v.  Gayle,  58  Ala.  284;  and 
cases  cited  under  §  200. 

s  Where  distribution  between  adult 
heirs  or  legatees  is  held  good,  at  least  in 
equity,  as  among  themselves  and  against 
strangers,  but  cannot  affect  the  rights  of 
creditors:  Amis  v.  Cameron,  55  Ga.  44U, 
451,  citing  earlier  Georgia  cases. 

^  Begien  i\  Freeman,  75  Ind.  308  ; 
Ilolzman  v.  Plibben,  100  Ind.  338;  Salter 
r.  Salter,  08  Ind.  522,  holding  that,  as  an 
exception  to  the  general  rule,  the  heirs 
may  sue  for  a  debt  owing  to  the  decedent, 
if  he  left  no  debts  to  be  paid  and  there 
is  no  administration,  and  citing  earlier 
Indiana  cases. 

"  McCleary  v.  Menke,  100  111.  294. 

8  Succession  of  Welch,  36  La  An.  702, 
post.  §  203. 

VOL.  I  —28 


^  Adult  heirs  having  agreed  upon  the 
settlement  of  an  estate,  tiiere  being  no 
debts,  are  estopped  from  disturbing  it  by 
the  appointment  of  an  administrator  : 
Needham  v.  Gillett,  .39  Mich.  574  ;  Foote 
V.  Foote,  61  Mich.  181. 

"  Voluntary  distribution  between  heirs 
capable  of  binding  themselves  is  valid  ; 
but  not  if  parties  are  interested  who  are 
incapable  of  assenting  to  the  distribution 
in  a  binding  manner  :  Kilcrease  v.  Shelby, 
23  Miss.  161,  Kit).  It  is  well  settled  in 
Mississippi,  tiiat,  in  the  absence  of  admin- 
istration of  the  estate  of  a  decedent,  a 
court  of  chancery  will  decree  distribution 
among  the  heirs :  Watson  i\  Byrd,  53 
Miss.  4H0,  483,  citing  earlier  Mississippi 
cases  ;  Hicks  r.  Hiiliard,  45  Miss.  350,  363. 

11  Wright  V.  Smith,  10  Nev.  148,  147. 

1'  Equity  will  not  interfere  with  the 
voluntary  settlement  of  an  estate  b\'  adult 
heirs,  except  for  manifest  mistake,  fraud, 
or  misconduct  of  arbitrators,  or  other 
person  concerned  with  the  settlement  : 
George  V.  Johnson,  45  N.  H.  456,  citing 
Ilibbard  v.  Kent,  15  N.  II.  516,  510;  and 
it  seems  that  the  guardian  may  act  for 
the  ward  so  as  to  bmd  him  :  Woodman  v. 
Rowe,  59  N.  H.  453 


434  NECESSITY    OF    OFFICIAL   ADMINISTRATION.  §  202 

nia,^  Tennessee,-  Tcxas,^  and  Vermont.*  So  where  b}^  the  statute 
administration  cannot  be  granted  after  the  lapse  of  a  certain 
period  of  time,  the  title  to  the  property  of  the  decedent,  which 
may  have  been  in  abeyance  during  such  period,  vests  in  the  heirs, 
so  that  they  may  maintain  an  action  thereon,^  or  be  sued.*^  Nor 
will  administration  be  held  necessary  to  enable  one  to  bring  a 
suit  to  cancel  a  conveyance  of  real  estate,  or  to  vacate  an  unau- 
thorized will.'  Where  there  is  an  administrator,  and  the  heirs  or 
parties  beneficially  entitled  thereto  are  in  possession  of  personal 
property,  the  administrator  will  not  be  allowed  to  recover  if  it 
appear  that  debts  are  all  paid.^  In  Connecticut  the  statute  pro- 
vides that,  if  all  parties  in  interest  are  capable  of  acting,  they  may 
distribute  the  estate  by  deed  recorded.  If  the  deed  is  not  exe- 
cuted and  recorded  as  provided  by  statute,  it  is  not  sufficient  to 
preclude  a  regular  distribution  by  the  probate  court.® 

§  202.  Residuary  or  Sole  Legatees  taking  Estates  vwithout  Admin- 
istration. —  In  the  States  of  Maine,i*^  Maryland,^^  Massachusetts,^^ 
States  in  which  Michigau,^^  Minnesota,^*  Nebraska,^^  New  Hampshire,^** 
ary  legatee  "  Ohio,^'  Yemiont,^^  and  Wisconsin,^^  it  is  provided  that, 
esffte'lvi'thout  when  the  person  nominated  in  the  will  as  executor  is 
administration    j^]g^  ^]^g  residuary  legatee,  he  may,  at  his  option,  in- 

ongivinji;  bona  ./        o  '  j  i  i  7 

to  pay  debts.  stcad  of  the  regular  administration  bond  required  of 
executors,  give  bond  with  sufficient  sureties  conditioned  that  lie 
will  pay  the  testator's  debts  and  legacies  (including,  either  ex- 
pressly or  by  implication,  funeral  expenses  and  the  allowances  to 

1  If  there  be  no  creditors,  tlie  heirs  "  Veal  v.  Fortson,  57  Tex.  482,  487. 
have  a  complete  equity  in  the  property,  *  Abbott  v.  The  People,  10  III.  App. 
and  they  may  distribute  it  among  them-  62,  65,  citing  Lewis  v.  Lyons,  W>  111.  117  ; 
selves  without  administration:  Walworth  Woodhouse  v.  Phelps,  51  Conn.  521; 
V.  Abel,  52  Pa.  St.  370,  372;  Weaver  v.  Robinson  v.  Simmons,  15  N.  East.  (Mass.) 
Roth,  105  Pa.  St.  408,  41.3.  558,  566. 

2  Christian  v.  Clark,  10  Lea,  630,  6.38,  »  Dickinson's  Appeal,  .54  Conn.  224. 
citing   Brandon    v.    Mason,    1    Lea,   615.  10  Rev.  St.  1883,  p.  538,  §  10. 

But  division  of  an    intestate's   property  "  Duvall    v.    Snowden,     7    Gill   &   J. 

without    administration    is    not   encour-  4.30. 

aged  :  Crabb,  J.,   in   Wright  v.  Wright,  i'^  Pub.   St.   1882,  ch.  129,  §  6  e<  $<q.; 

Mart.  &  Y.  43.  ch.  130,  §  8. 

3  Patterson  v.  Allen,  50  Te.v.  23,  25 ;  !»  How.  St.  1882,  §  5836. 
Webster  v.  Willis,  56  Tex.  468.  1*  Rev.  St.  1878.  ch.  50,  §  4. 

*  Taylor  v.  Phillips,  30  Vt.  238;  Bab-  ^^  Comp.  St.  1887,  ch.  2-3,  §§  164,  165. 

bitt  V.  Bowen,  32  Vt.  437.  i«  Gen.  Laws,  1878,  p.  459,  §  13. 

6  Phinny   v.   Warren,   52   Iowa,   332,  i'  Rev.  St.  1880,  §  5997. 

334.  ^8  Rev.  Laws,  1880,  §  2067. 

6  State    V.    Lewellyn,   25    Tex.    797  ;  ^^  Rev.  St.  1878,  §  3795. 
Patterson  v  Allen,  supra. 


§  202  RESIDUARY   OR    SOLE    LEGATEE.  435 

the  widow  nnd  children),  and  will  then  he  relieved  from  tlie 
necessity  of  rcturnint,^  an  inventory,  or  further  accounting  in  tlie 
probate  court.     An  executor  giviniji:  such  bond  at  once  „    , 

'  '^  ^  Bona  operates 

becomes   the  owner  of  the  whole  estate  in  his  own  ''^  admission 

•    1  1    T    1  1       f  11        r  of  assets  siiHi- 

right,  and  luible  lor  all  of  tlie  debts  of  the  testator;  cienttopay 
the  bond  being  a  substitute  for  the  estate  of  the  de- 
ceased,^ and  operating  as  an  admission  of  suthcient  assets  and  a 
guaranty  to  pay  all  debts,  since  the  executor  files  no  inventory  of 
assets,  the  only  means  from  which  it  could  be  ascertained  whether 
they  equal  the  debts  and  legacies.^  The  bond  cannot  be  sur- 
rendered or  cancelled,  at  least  not  after  the  expiration  of  the  time 
within  which  the  law  requires  an  inventory  in  ordinary  cases  to 
be  filed  ;  ^  but  if  at  any  time  afterward  it  be  deemed  insufficient, 
the  executor  may  be  ordered  to  give  additional  bond,  and  removed 
for  failure  to  comply  with  such  order."*  Where  a  widow  gives 
such  bond  as  executrix  and  residuary  legatee,  it  is  not  avoided  by 
her  failure  to  inform  the  judge,  as  required  by  the  statute,  of  her 
acceptance  of  the  provisions  of  the  will.^  The  court  may  hear 
evidence  to  determine  whether  a  legacy  be  residuary,  and,  if  it 
appears  that  there  is  no  other  property  undisposed  of,  a  bond  may 
be  given  to  pay  debts  and  legacies.^  In  Alabama  a  sole  legatee 
who  is  named  executor  in  the  will,  but  who  fails  to  qualify  as  such, 
cannot  maintain  an  action  as  the  real  person  in  interest  to  recover 
on  a  note  in  favor  of  the  decedent,  when  it  does  not  affirmatively 
appear  that  there  are  no  debts.''' 

1  It  was  once  held  in  Massachusetts  t-.  Snowclen,  7  Gill  &  J.  4.S0 ;  BatclieUler 
(overruling  the  case  of  Gore  v.  Brazier,  r.  Russell,  10  N.  IT.  39;  Tarhell  v.  Whit- 
3 Mass.  523,  540)  that  hy  the  giving  of  ing,  5  N.  H.  63;  Buell  v.  Dickey,  9  Neb. 
such  bond  creditors  lost  their  liens  on  the  285,  203.  See  also  Jenkins  v.  Wood,  144 
real  or  personal  estate  wliich  the  executor  Mass.  238. 

may  have  conveyed  to  bona  fide  purclias-  3  Alger  iv  Colwell,  2  Gray,  404  ;  H;ith- 

ers:  Clarke  i-.   Tufts,  5   Pick.  337,   340;  ewny  r.  Weeks,  34  Midi.  237*  245;  Probate 

Thompson  v.  Brown,  16  Mass.  172,  178;  Juilge  v.  Abbott,  50  Mich.  278,  284. 

but  the  lien  of  creditors  on  tlie  testator's  *  And  after  tlie  removal  no  judgment 

real  estate  is  expressly  preserved  by  Gen.  can  be  rendered  against  him  in  an  action 

St.  1860,  p.  485.    But  suit  upon  such  bond  previously  brought   against    him   in    his 

must  be  brought  witliin  the  time  limited  representative  character  on  a  debt  of  the 

for  suits  against  executors  and  adminis-  testator:  National  Bank  v.  Stanton,  116 

trators  :  Jenkins  v.  Wood,  134  Mass.  115.  Mass.  435. 

2  Shaw,  C.  J.,  in  Jones  v.  Richardson,  5  Heydock  v.  Duncan,  43  N.  H.  05, 101. 
5  Met.  (Mass.)  247,  240  ;  Conant  v.  Strat-  ^  Morgan  v.  Dodge,  44  N.  H.  255,'2tJ3. 
ton,  107  Mass.  474,  483,  citing  Fay  v.  Tay-  In  this  case  Bell,  C.  J.,  strongly  dis'cour- 
lor,  2  Gray,  154,  and  other  Massachusetts  ages  tlie  giving  of  such  bonds,  "  as  many 
cases.  See  also  Colwell  c.  Alger,  5  Gray,  persons  have  been  ruined  "  thereby  :  p. 
67,  holding  that  the  giving  of  such  bond  is  262. 

a  conclusive  admission  of  assets  ;  Duvall  "i  Wood  v.  Cosby,  76  Ala.  557. 


436  NECESSITY   OF   OFFICIAL   ADMINISTRATION,  §  203 

It  is  to  be  observed  that  the  simple  designation  in  tbe  will  of 
a  person  as  residuary  legatee  and  executor  does  not  authorize  him 
to  collect  demands  of  his  testator  ;  an  appointment  as  executor, 
by  the  probate  court,  is  necessary .^ 

In  Texas  the  statute  provides  that  a  testator  may  provide  in  his 
will  that  "no  other  action  shall  be  had  in  the  county  court,  in  rela- 
tion to  the  settlement  of  his  estate,  than  the  probating  and  record- 
ing of  his  will,  and  the  return  of  an  inventory  and  appraisement 
and  list  of  claims  of  his  estate"  ;2  and  if  the  will  does  not  dispose 
of  the  whole  estate,  the  executor  may  account  in  the  county  court, 
and  pray  for  distribution,  as  in  other  cases.^  It  is  there  held,  that 
if  the  will  provides  for  distribution  or  partition,  the  county  court 
has  no  jurisdiction  to  adjudicate  thereon > 

Provision  is  made  by  statute  in  some  of  the  States,  that,  where 
the  property  of  an  estate  does  not  exceed  in  value  the  amount 
„     ,   .  .         which  is  secured  to  the  widow  or  minor  orphans  for 

No  adminis-  ^ 

tiation  is  ne-      their  immediate  support,  the  probate  court  raav  dis- 

cessaiy  for  ,      .    .  .  t  ,        .  ,  ".  -, 

estates  not  ex-  pcusc  With  admmistratiou,  and  authorize  the  widow, 
amnunt  allowed  or  iiiinor  children  by  next  friend,  to  collect  and  appro- 
or  mhior''"'''  priatc  to  their  own  use  all  such  property.^  The  sound- 
children,  j^ggg  q£  ^i^g  principle  upon  which  such  provisions  rest, 
or  rather  the  absurdity  of  a  contrary  view,  is  self-evident.  Why 
should  the  law  compel  administration  where  there  is  nothing  to 
administer  ?  The  appointment  of  an  administrator  in  such  case 
could  have  no  possible  effect  but  to  diminish  or  eat  up  what  the 
law  intends  for  the  support  of  widows  and  orphans.  It  is  held 
in  Louisiana,  that  administration  is  not  necessary  if  the  property 
of  an  estate  is  of  less  value  than  the  expense  of  administration.'^ 
If  the  property  of  the  deceased  debtor  exceed  in  value  the  amount 
of  exemption  in  favor  of  the  widow  and  minor  children,  adminis- 
tration may  be  ordered  by  the  probate  court,"  or  the  creditor  may 
maintain  a  bill  in  equity  to  subject  the  excess  held  by  the  widow 
or  minor  children  to  the  satisfaction  of  his  debt.^ 

§  203.  Administration  in  Louisiana.  —  The  descent  of  property 
is  not  governed  by  the  same  rule  in  Louisiana  as  in  the  other 
States,  but  is  modelled  after  the  law  prevalent  on  the  continent 

1  Tappan  v.  Tappan,  30  N.  H.  50.  S.  E.  R.  12.     Similar  provisions  exist  i.  n. 

2  Rev.  St.  1888,  art.  1942.  in  Alabama,  Arkansas,  Georgia,  Illinois, 

3  Ibid.,  art.  1948.  and  Oregon.     See  ante,  p.  172. 

4  Lumpkin  v.  Smith,  62  Tex.  249.  ^  Sonhiran  v.  Rivollet,  4  La.  An.  828. 

5  Rev.  St.   Mo.   §  2  ;  Pace  v.  Oppen-  ^  Rev.  St.  Mo.  §  2. 

helm,  12  Ind.   533;  Clark  y.  Fleming,  4  **  Cameron  y.  Cameron,  82  Ala  392,395. 


§  203  ADMINISTRATION    IN    LOUISIANA.  437 

of  Europe.  Pro})crty,  personal  as  well  as  real,  may  there  pass 
directly  to  the  heir,  without  any  ofiicial  intervention  whatever. 
Heirs  are  described  as  of  three  kinds  :  testamentary,  or  instituted 
heirs  ;  legal  heirs,  or  heirs  of  the  blood ;  and  irregular  heirs. 
They  may,  as  above  suggested,  take  directly  and  absolutely,  and 
in  such  case  become  liable  out  of  their  own  property  for  all  debts 
of  the  decedent,  in  like  manner  as  the  suua  hceres,  or  the  hceres 
neeessarius,  under  the  ancient  Roman  law;'  or  they  may  renounce 
the  succession,  in  which  case  they  are  not  liable  for  any  of  the 
debts,  nor  entitled  to  any  of  the  property  of  the  estate  ;  or  they 
may  claim  benefit  of  inventory,  when  an  administrator  is  appointed 
to  manage  the  estate,  pay  its  debts,  and  distribute  the  surplus.^ 
Minors  can  only  take  with  benefit  of  inventory,  hence  partition 
between  them  and  adults  can  only  be  made  upon  the  appointment 
of  an  administrator  ;  ^  but  where  a  succession  is  not  in  debt,  the 
tutrix  of  the  minor  children  may  recover  the  property  of  the 
succession,  and  give  valid  acquittances  therefor,  without  adminis- 
tration.* A  beneficiary  heir  does  not  represent  the  estate,  and 
cannot  be  sued  by  a  creditor  of  the  succession.^  Where  a  legatee 
dies  before  the  testator,  and  the  latter  leaves  no  debts  to  be  paid, 
the  appointment  of  an  executor  becomes  inoperative  ;  ^  and  an 
administrator  will  not  be  appointed  unless  there  be  an  absolute 
necessity  for  it.'  But  a  judgment  creditor  of  an  estate  can  sus- 
tain no  petitory  action  against  one  alleged  to  be  in  possession  of 
property  belonging  to  the  succession  when  there  is  no  adminis- 
trator.s 

1  Ante,  §  170.  5  State  v.  Leckie,  14  La.  An.  641. 

2  Code  La.  tit.  "  Successions."  ^  Succession    of   Dupuy,    4    La.  An. 

3  Dees  V.  Tihion,  2  La.  An.  412;  Sue-     570. 

cession  of  Duclolange,   1  La.  An.   181  ;  "  Alleman   v.  Bergeron,   16    La.    An. 

Martin  v.  Dupre,  1  La.  An.  239.  191. 

*  Martin  v.  Dupre',  sufwa ;  Succession  "^  Louaillier  i'.  Castille,  14  La.  An.  777. 

of  Sutton,  20  La.  An.  150. 


PART    SECOND. 

OF  THE   INDUCTION   TO  THE  OFFICE  OF   EXECUTOR 
AND  ADMINISTRATOR. 


CHAPTER   XXIII. 

OF   THE   PRELIMINARIES   TO    THE   GRANT   OF   LETTERS   TESTAMENTARY 
AND    OP    ADMINISTRATION. 

§  204.  Local  Jurisdiction  to  grant  Letters  Testamentary  and  of 
Administration.  —  Whatever  may  have  been  the  law  in  ancient 
^     ,       ,  .     times,  it  is  certain  that  at  the  time  of  the  passing  of 

Local  courts  in  '  .        . 

England  au-      the  Court  of  Probatc  Act,^  the  ecclesiastical  court  was, 

thorized  to  .-r^,-,,  i  ,•  i-iji  t  t,  c 

giant  letters  m  England,  the  only  court  in  which  the  validity  oi 
mid^of  adniin-  wills  of  pcrsoualty,  or  of  any  testamentary  paper  what- 
istration.  ^^^^  relating  to  personalty,  could  be  established  or 

disputed,  except  certain  courts  baron.^  In  the  United  States  this 
jurisdiction,  and  the  power  to  appoint  executors  and  administra- 
tors, are  vested  in  probate  courts,  or  courts  having  probate  powers, 
by  whatever  name  known.^ 

It  is  unimportant  to  consider,  in  this  connection,  the  rules  by 
which  the  local  jurisdiction  of  testamentary  courts  was  deter- 
mined in  England,  previous  to  the  enactment  of  the  statute  of  20 
&  21  Vict.  c.  77,  or  the  doctrine  of  bona  notahilia  affecting  this 

1  20  &  21  Vict.  c.  77.  Diocesan  Courts,  36  ;   Courts  of  Bishops' 

2  Wms.  [288].  An  interesting  account  Commissaries,  14  ;  Arcliidiaconal  Courts, 
of  the  ecclesiastical  courts  having  tes-  37 "  ;  of  Peculiar  Jurisdictions,  "  Rov- 
tamentary  juri^^iliction  in  England  is  al,  11  ;  Archiepiscopal  and  Episcopal, 
given  in  Foster's  "Doctors'  Commons,  14;  Decanal,  Subdecanal,  etc,  44;  Pre- 
its  Courts  and  Registries,"  published  in  bendal,  88;  Rectorial  and  Vicarial,  63; 
London,  1871.  It  is  there  said  that  prior  other  Peculiars,  17  ;  Courts  of  Lords  of 
to  the  year  1858  there  were  372  such  Manors,  48  ;  =  372."  See  also  ante,  §  137. 
courts,  whose   several  names  and  num-  ^  Ante,  §§  140,  142. 

bers   are   thus   stated :  "  Provincial  and 


§  204  LOCAL   JURISDICTION.  439 

iurisdiction.i     The  rule  in  America  is  universal,  that  Court  of  pro- 

,      .    .  .  1  J     1   •  oj.    i.  fT<        •     bate  jurisdic- 

administration  may  be  granted  in  any  btate  or  lerri-  i^^^^oi  the 
tory  where  unadniinistered  personal  property  of  a  de-  trictS"the'^ 
ceased  person  is  found,  or  real  property  subject  to  the  JX^^'t\fgrLnt3 
claim  of  any  creditor  of  the  deceased  ;  and  that  pro-  letters. 
bate  of  the  will  of  any  deceased  person   may  be  granted  in  any 
State  where  he  leaves  personal  or  real  property. 

As  between  the  several  courts  within  the  same  State  or  sover- 
eignty, jurisdiction  attaches  primarily  to  that  tribunal  which  is  in- 
vested with  probate  powers  for  the  county  or  territo-  -^^j^j^^j  se- 
rial district  which  includes  the  domicil  of  the  testator  ga-d  to  place 

of  death  or 

or  intestate  at  the  time  of  his  death,  without  regard  to  situs  of  prop- 
tlie  place  of  his  death  or  situs  of  his  property .^  Juris-  ^  •^" 
diction  so  attaching  is  not  lost  by  a  change  of  the  territorial 
limits  or  boundaries  of  the  county  or  district  after  the  death  of 
the  testator  or  intestate  ;3  but  upon  a  proper  representation  the 
court  before  which  proceedings  are  pending  may,  it  seems,  by  its 
order  to  transfer  the  proceedings,  confer  jurisdiction  upon  the 
court  in  the  new  county  or  district.* 

If  the  deceased  had,  at  the  time  of  his  death,  no  o,- where  he 
fixed  place  of  residence,  letters  may  be  granted  in  the  Kno  fixed 
county  where  he  died;  or  if  he  died  abroad,  in  any  domicii; 

,  -1  .  ,  1        r  1  J    T   u       orif  he  died 

county  where  his  property  may  be  tound ;  and  it  ne  abroad  in  any 
left  property  in  more  than  one  county,  then  in  any  of  i^ef t  prSP 
them.^     It  is  obvious  however,  tliat  there  can  be  but  eity. 
one  grant  of  administration  on  the  same  estate  in  the  ^ranfed'hfany 
same  sovereiii'nty  or  State  ;  and  since  the  jurisdiction  county,  no  let- 

o      J  '  -I  ters  can  be 

which  has  once  attached  remains  until  final  comple-  granted  in  any 

.    .  other  in  the 

tion  of  the  administration,  the  court  first  exercising  same  state. 

1  Ante,  §  139  ;  post,  §  203.  Bain  v.  Wiiiibisli,  27  Ga.  259,  261  ;  Bug- 

2  McBain  v.  Wimbish,  27  Ga.  259, 261 ;  bee  v.  Surrogate,  2  Cow.  471 ;  Lindsay  v. 
Johnson  v.  Beazley,  65  Mo.  250 ;  Mc-  McCormack,  2  A.  K.  Marsh.  229. 
Campbell  v.  Gilbert,  6  J.  J  Marsh.  592  ;  *  Knight  v.  Knight,  27  Ga.  633,  636. 
Succession  of  Williamson,  3  La.  An  261  ;  And  the  legislature,  in  some  States,  may 
Ilolyoke  v.  Haskins,  5  Pick.  20;  Wilson  by  s])ecial  act  confer  such  jurisdiction: 
V.  Frazier,  2  Humph.  30.  Wrigiit  v.  Mare,  50  Ala.  549. 

3  Tlius,  if  after  the  deatli  of  the  intes-  ^  Leake  v.  Gilchrist,  2  Dev.  L.  73.  In 
tate  that  portion  of  tlie  countj'  in  which  Mississippi  an  appointment  was  sustained 
lie  resided  at  the  time  of  his  death  is  in  a  comity  where  tlie  greater  part  of  the 
erected  into  a  new  county,  or  attached  to  personal  property  of  the  decedent  was 
anotlier  county,  the  probate  court  of  the  situated,  altliough  liis  domicil  was  in  an- 
old  county  still  retains  its  jurisdiction:  other  county  in  the  same  State :  Weaver 
Estate  of  Harlan,  24  Cal.  182,  187 ;  Mc-  i'.  Norwood,  59  Miss.  665. 


440  PUELIMINAIIIES    TO    GRANT    OF    LETTERS.  §  205 

jurisdiction  will  retain  it  to  the  exclusion  of  every  other  court  in 
the  State.^ 

S  205.    Jurisdiction   over   the  Estates  of   Deceased  Non-residents. 

—  No  administration  can  be  granted  in  the  case  of  a  deceased 
No  letters  can  non-rcsidcnt,  unlcss  he  left  property  within  the  juris- 
estfte^ot'^de-"  diction  of  tlic  court  makint^  the  apjtointment.^  But 
reskknt  unless  ^hcrc  such  property  is  found  within  the  State,  the 
tiiere  be  prop-    ^ourt  of  the  couutv  in  wliich  it,  or  a  imrt  of  it,  may  be 

erty  to  auinia-  •'  '  ' 

ister.  situated,  will  grant  administration  at  the  request  of 

any  person  being  interested.^  In  England  the  property  of  a  non- 
Bcmanota-  resident  sufficient  to  authorize  a  grant  of  adminis- 
biha.  tration   was   called  bo7ia  notahilia ;  this  term  is  not 

technically  applicable  in  the  United  States,  but  writers  and  judges 
find  it  convenient  to  use  it  in  speaking  of  the  jurisdiction  con- 
ferred by  the  several  kinds  of  property  for  the  purposes  of  ad- 
ministration.     "  Personal  property,"  says  Judge  Cooper  of  the 
Supreme  Court  of  Mississippi,  "  whether  of  a  tangible  or  an  intan- 
gible character,  is  considered  as  located,  for  the  purposes  of  ad- 
ministration, in   the    territory   of    that    State   whose    laws    must 
furnish  the  remedies  for  its  reduction  to  possession."  *     At  com- 
mon law,  says  Phelps,  J.,*^  the  site  of  administration 
in  respect  of  debts  due  a  deceased  person  never  fol- 
lowed the  residence  of  the  creditor.     "  They  are  always  hona  nota- 
hilia, unless  they  happen  to  fall  within  the  jurisdic- 
Judgments.        ^.^^^  where  he  resided.     Judgments  are  hona  notahilia 
where  the  record  is  ;  ^  specialties  where  they  are  at  the  time  of  the 

1  People  c.  White,  11  111.  341;  Wat-  damages  prosecuted  for  the  benefit  of  the 

kins  v.  Adams,  32  Miss.  SoS ;  Ex  parte  widow    and    children   or  next  of    kin   is 

Lyons,  2  Leigh,   761  ;  Kamey  v.  Green,  held,  in  Kansas,  not  to  constitute  assets, 

18Ala.  771,774;  Pawling  u.  Speed,  5  T.B.  and  letters   granted   on   the   estate  of  a 

Mon.580;  Seymour  r.  Seymour,  4  Johns,  non-resident    having  no  other   assets   in 

Ch.  409;  Estate  of  Scott,  15  Cal.  220;  the  State  are  void:  Perry  v.  St.  Joseph 

Gregory  v.  Ellis,  82  N.  C.  225 ;  SHnger  v.  R.  R.,  29  Kans.  420. 
Calverly,  37  N.  W.  R.  (Wis.)  236.  »  Bowles  v.   Rouse,    8   111.   409,   422  ; 

-  Letters  granted  in  violation  of  this  Sprayberry   v.    Culberson,    32    Ga.    2yy  ; 

rule  are  void  :    Miller  v.  Jones,  2G  Ala.  Hyman  v.  Gaskins,  5  Led.  L.  267 
247  ;  Jefferson ville  R.  R.  v.  Swayne,  26  *  Speed  v.  Kelly,  59  Miss.  47,  51, 

Ind.   477  ;    Thumb   v.   Gresham,   2   Met.  ^  in  Vaughn  v.  Barret,  5  Vt.  333,  837. 

(Kv.)  306;    Grimes    v.   Talbert,    14   Md.  To  same  effect,  Bell,  J.,  in  Taylor  c.  Bar- 

169;    Blewitt  v.  Nicholson,   2  Fla.  200;  ton,  35  N.    H.  484,  494;    Tliompson  v. 

Goodrich  v.  Pendleton,  4  John.  Ch.  549;  Wilson,  2  N.  H.  291 ;  Emery  v.  Hildreth, 

Christy   v.  Vest,  36   Iowa,  285 ;    Milten-  2  Gray,  228,  230. 

berger  v.  Knox,  21  La.  An.  399;  Patillo  «  Citing  Ld.  Raym.  855  ;  Carth.  149;  8 

V.  Barksdale,  22  Ga.   356.     A  claim  for  Mod.  244. 


§  205  ESTATES   OF   DECEASED    NON-RESIDENTS.  441 

creditor's  decease  ;  ^  and  sim])le  contract  debts  where  situs  of  simple 
the  debtor  resides."  2  Thus,  it  is  held  that  the  court  contract  debts, 
of  a  county  in  which  tiie  deceased  non-resident  had  obtained  a 
judgment  is  competent  to  hear  proof  of  his  will,  and  grant  letters 
thereon; 2  oi'  where  an  action  will  lie  against  the  decedent  to  set 
aside  a  conTcyance  in  fraud  of  liis  creditors  ;  •*  or  where  his  debtor 
resides.^  So  the  {)lace  where  a  life  insurance  comi)any  has  an 
office  and  an  agent  upon  whom  process  may  be  served  is  the  situs 
of  property  so  as  to  support  administration  on  the  estate  of  the  as- 
sured, although  domiciled  in  another  State  at  the  time  of  his  death, 
if  the  policy  of  insurance  was  located  in  the  State  granting  the 
letters."^  The  cause  of  action  against  a  debtor  must  be  one  which 
is  enforceable  against  hira;'^  but  if  it  be  n  bona  fide  claim,  the 
administration  wuU  not  be  avoided,  though  it  prove,  ultimately,  to 
be  invalid.^  Negotiable  promissory  notes,  bonds  payable  to  the 
bearer,  or  evidences  of  debt  to  which  the  title  passes  by  manual 
delivery  or  simple  indorsement,  are  bona  notabiUa  in  any  State 
where  they  may  be  found ;  but  the  debtor's  residence  is  not  suf- 
ficient to  confer  title  upon  the  ancillary  administrator  unless 
they  come  actually  into  his  hands,^  Shares  of  stock  of  a  rail- 
road corporation  are  bona  notahilia  in  the  county  where  the 
stock-books  are  kept,  transfers  made,  and  dividends  paid ;  ^°  and 
a  note  secured  by  mortgage,  where  the  property  is  situated 
out  of  which  payment  may  be  enforced.^!  The  situs  of  real 
estate  confers  jurisdiction  to  take  probate  of  a  will  affecting 
it,  and  in  consequence  thereof  to   grant  letters  testamentary  or 

1  Citing  Liini  v.  Dodson,  in  Selw.  N.  ^  New  England  Co.  y.  Woodworth,  111 

P.  ;  Byron  v.  Byron,  Cro.  Eliz.  (472).  U.  S.  108,  145. 

^  Citing  Ciirtliew,  373  ;  Salli.  37  ;  Ld.  "  A  riglit  of  action  whicli  is  local  to 

Raym.  562.     An  interest  in  an  insurance  the  State  creating  it  will  not  supjjort  the 

policy  payable  upon  the  death  of  another  grant  of  administration  in  another  State : 

constitutes  assets,  and  will  authorize  tiie  Illinois  Central  K.  li.  Co.  v.  Cragin,  71 

grant  of  letters  in  the  county  where  the  III.  177. 

policy  is  :  Johnston  r.  Smitii,  25  Hun,  171,  ^  Sullivan  v.  Fosdick,    10  Hun,   173; 

170.     See /JOi?,  §  300,  and  cases  cited.  Holyoke    v.   Mutual    Life    Ins.    Co.,    22 

3  Thomas   v.  Tanner,  6    T.   B.   ^lon.  Hun,   75. 

52,  58.  9  Goodlett   v.  Anderson,  7  Lea,   286, 

*  Bowdoin  V.  Holland,  10  Cush.  17.  288;  Shakespeare  v.  Fidelity  Co.,  !t7  I'a. 

6  Stearns    v.   Wriglit,   51   N.   H.  600;  St.  173,  177;  Beers  i-.  Shannon.  73  N.  Y. 

Murphy    i-.    Creighton,    45    Iowa,    179;  292,  2!I8 ;  Moore /-..Jordan,  36  Kans.  271. 

Sullivan   v.  Fosdick,   10  Hun,  173.   180;  ^  Arnold  r.  Arnold,  62  Ga.  627,  637. 

Swancy  v.  Scott,  9  Humph.  327  ;  Wyman  ^^  Clark  v.  Blackington,  110  Mass.  369, 

V.   Halstead,  109  U.  S.  654.      See,  as  to  373.     It  is  held  in   Kansas,  that  on  the 

the  situs  of  debts,  post,  §  309.  death  of  the  owner  of  a  note  secured  by 


442  PRELIMINARIES    TO    GRANT    OF    LETTERS.  §  206 

of  administration,^  without  reference  to  the  deceased  owner's 
domicil. 

Property  brought  into  the  State  for  collusive  purposes,  or  tem- 
porarily, after  the  owner's  death,  does  not  confer  jurisdiction  to 
grant  administration  thereon  ;  ^  but  if  a  debtor  voluntarily  come 
to  another  State,  although  after  the  creditor's  death,  administra- 
tion may  be  had  in  such  State  at  the  instance  of  creditors  or  other 
persons  interested.^ 

§  206.  What  constitutes  Domicil  or  Residence.  —  It  is  not 
always  easy  to  prove  what  was  the  domicil  or  place  of  residence 
of  a  person  at  the  time  of  his  death,  so  as  to  fix  the  jurisdiction 
Definition  of  ^^'^^"  ^"^  estatc  in  the  proper  forum.  It  has  been  de- 
domicii.  fined  as  being,  in  the  common  law  sense,  the  place 

where  one  has  his  true,  fixed,  and  permanent  home  and  principal 
establishment,  to  which,  whenever  he  is  absent,  he  has  the  inten- 
tion of  returning.*  When  once  acquired,  it  continues  until  by  free 
It  cannot  he  choicc  another  is  substituted  therefor.  Hence  there 
one'not  i^u^i  ''"^  ^^^^  ^^^  ^^^  abandonment  or  acquisition  of  a  domicil  by 
juris;  quc  uot  sui  juris,  the  domicil  of  the  child  follows  that 

of  its  parents,  and  the  domicil  of  the  wife  follows  that  of  her 
husband.  Absence  from  the  domicil,  and  residence  elsewhere  for 
reasons  of  health,  comfort,  business,  recreation,  temporary  con- 
venience, and  the  like,  do  not  constitute  or  indicate  an 

nor  without  p      i         t         •    -i        m 

concurrence  of   abandonment  of  the  domicil.     lo  work  a  change  of 

the  intent  and       i         .    -i     ,i  ,    i  n    j^i       -    ^      ^• 

factof  aban-  douiicil,  there  must  be  a  concurrence  of  the  intention 
donment.  ^^  acquire   a   new  domicil  with    the  fact  of   having 

real  estate  in  another  State,  the  title  to  heirs,  or  property  there :  Speed  v.  Kelly, 

the  note  vests  in  tlie  domiciliar  .adminis-  69  Miss.  47. 

trator,  who  may  sue  for  the  foreclosure  ^  Apperson   v.    Bolton,   29   Ark.  418, 

of  the  mortgage  in  the  State  where  the  437,  citing  Clark  r.  Holt,  16  Ark.  257,  265 

land  lies,  (a  foreign  administrator  having  Kosenthal   v.  Renick,   44   111.  202,   207 

authority   to  sue  tiiere,)   on  the   griund  Sheldon    v.    Rice,    .30    Mich.    296,   302 

that  the  mortgage  is  a  mere  security,  and  Bisiiop  v.  Lalouette,  67    Ala.   197,   200 

incident  to  the  note:  Eells  v.  Holder,  2  Lees  v.  Wetmore,  5H  Iowa,  170,  179. 
McCrary,  022.     But  the  ancillary  admin-  ^  Cliristy  v.  Vest,  3tj  Iowa,  285  ;  Var- 

istrator  has  not  tlie  title  to  the  property,  ner  v.  Bevil,  17  Ala.  286. 
and  hence  cannot  sue  in   another  State  ^  Pinney  v.  McGregory,  102  Mass.  186, 

where  the  land  is  situate  :  Moore  v.  Jor-  189 ;  Fox  v.  Carr,  16  Hun,  434,  437. 
dan,  36  Kans.  271.     So  it  is  said  in  Mis-  *  Schoul.  Ex.  §  21,  citing  Bouv.  Law 

sissippi  that  a  note  secured  on  land  in  Diet.  ;    Thorndike    v.    Boston,    1     Met. 

that   State  is  not  within  the  statute  re-  (Mass.)  242,  245;  Oilman  v.  Oilman,  52 

quiring  personal  property  to  be  distrib-  Me.  165;    Story,  Confl.    L.    §   39  et  seq. 

uted  under  its  own  laws,  if  the  mortgage  Tiie  place  of  residence  is  prima  facie  a 

and  note  are  found  at  the  foreign  domicil  man's  domicil :  Oraveley  v.  Graveley,  25 

of  the  intestate,  who  has   no  creditors,  S.  C.  1,  17. 


§  207  PROOF    OF    DEATH.  443 

acquired  one  and  abandoned  the  former  one,  without  the  intention 
of  returning  thereto.^ 

Where  one  dies  while  in  the  act  of  moving  with  his  family  from 
one  State  to  another,  with  the  intention  of  accjuiring  a  new  domi- 
cil  in  the  State  of  their  destination,  and  after  his  ^     .  .,   , 

Uomicil  <ii  one 

death  the  family  continue  their  journey  with  the  prop-  dying  j,,  tian- 
erty  of  the  estate,  it  was  held  that  letters  of  adminis-  state  to 
tration  may  well  be  granted  in  the  place  of  destination  *"'"'  ^^^' 
where  the  family  located.^     It  is  suggested  by  Mr.  Schouler  that 
the  status  of  distribution  and  of  testacy  should  be  rather  accord- 
ing to  the  law  of  the  domicil  he  left,  as  the  true  locus  of  a  last 
domicil.^ 

In  New  York  the  property  of  a  deceased  Indian  of  the  Six 
Nations  is  not  subject  to  administration  by  the  State  authorities, 
and  letters  granted  are  void;*  but  in  Alabama  the  Dumicii  of 
appointment  of  an  administrator  on  the  estate  of  an  ^"^^'^"=^- 
Indian,  who  died  before  his  nation  became  subject  to  the  laws  of 
the  State,  by  the  Orphan's  Court  of  the  county  in  which  property 
left  by  him  was  afterward  found,  was  held  valid ;  ^  while  in  Cali- 
fornia it  was  held  that  probate  courts  have  no  jurisdiction  over 
the  estate  of  a  person  who  died  before  the  adoption  of  the  State 
constitution,^ 

§  207.  Proof  of  Death.  —  The  death  of  the  testator  whose  will 
is  to  be  proved,  or  of  the  intestate  whose  estate  is  asked  to  be 

^  Sclioul.    Ex.   §    21,   citing    Udny  v.  death  constructively  in  this  State,  under 

Udiiy,  L.  H.  1  H.  L.  Sc.  451,  458;  Story,  tlie  circumstances  iiere  presented  ;  solely, 

Confl.  L.  §  45;  Wiibraliam  v.  Ludlow,  99  however,  for  tlie  purpose  of  enabling  a 

Mass.  587;  Haldane  i\  Eckford,  L.  K.  8  county  court  in  this  State  to  grant  admin- 

Eq.  6ol,  G40 ;  Colt,  J.,  in  Hallet  v.  Bas-  istration  thereon":  Burnett  r.  Meadows, 

seit,  100  Mass.  167,  170  ;  and  other  f:ng-  7  B.  Mon.  277. 

lisii  cases.    '"The  mere  intention  to  change  ^  The  case  cited  by  him  does  not  sup- 

tlie  domicil,  witliout  an  actual  removal  port  the  doctrine  of  his  text,  because  no 

with  the  intention  of  remaining,  does  not  administration  was  granted    in    Slate  r. 

cause  a  loss  of   the  domicil " :    State  v.  Hallett,  8  Ala.  159 ;    but  see   Embry  v. 

Hallett,  8  Ala.  159,  161  ;  George  v.  Wat-  Millar,  1  A.  K.  Marsh.  300,  cited  in  IBur- 

son,  19  Tex.  354;  Walker  i-.  Walker,  1  nett  r.  Meadows,  *«/«(/,  as  indicating  such 

Mo.   App.  404,  413;  Chalmers  i-.  Wing-  a  view, 

field,    L.  R.  30  Cii.  D.  400.  •*  Because    the   "  Six    Nations  "    are 

^  "  Inasmuch,  however,  as  this  prop-  treated  as  a  nation  witli  sovereign  power 

erty  was  /;;  lidiisitu   when   he  died,  and  in  some  respects:  Dole  i'.  Irish,  2  Barb, 

afterwards  reached  its  destination,  and  as  (539;  see  also  United  States  v.  Payne,  4 

many  inconveniences  would  result  from  Dillon,  387,  and  cases  cited, 

the  absence  of  power  in  our  count}'  courts  ^  Brashear  v.  Williams,  10  Ala.  G30. 

to  regulate  its   administration,  it  should  ''  Downer  r.  Smith.  24  Cal.  114;  Hardy 

be  regarded  as  being  at  the  time  of  his  v.  Harbin,  4  Sawy.  536. 


444 


PRELIMINARIES   TO   GRANT   OF   LETTERS. 


ix^ath  of  testa-  Subjected  to  administration,  is  a  question  of  fact,  of 
must' be  proved  wliicli  pi'oof  iiiust  bc  madc  bcfoi'e  the  jurisdiction  of 
l^*"^"!?,.:"-!';  !^  the  court  attaches.  Ordinarily,  tlic  death  of  a  person 
tion.  leaving  property  for  administration  is  a  matter  of  such 

notoriety  that  proof  is  of  easy  access  among-  the  neighbors,  rela- 
tives, and  i)ersons  interested  in  the  estate.  But  where  the  testator 
or  intestate  was  domiciled  abroad,  or  died  away  from  home  in  a 
remote  country,  direct  proof  is  not  always  attainable ;  and  death 
must  in  such  cases  be  established  by  circumstantial  evidence,  the 
most  usual  of  which  is  such  person's  prolonged  and  unexplained 
absence  from  home  without  being  heard  from.  When  such  ab- 
Presuniption  of  scucc  from  liomc  ^  has  continued  for  above  seven 
affer'absence  years,^  within  which  time  no  intelligence  of  his  exist- 
for  seven  years  gj^^g  j^g^g  reached  his  relatives,  friends,  or  acquaint- 

witiiout  being  '  '  ^ 

heard  from.  anccs,  it  wiU  bc  prcsumcd  that  he  is  dead,'^  and  proof 
of  these  circumstances,  unrebutted,  will  support  the  adjudication 
of  the  probate  court  necessary  to  give  it  jurisdiction.*  This  pre- 
sumption does  not,  obviously,  attach  to  any  particular  time  within 
the  seven  years,  but  in  the  absence  of  facts  indicating  the  time 
of  death,  assumes  the  absentee  to  have  lived  through  the  whole 
period.^ 


'  Tliat  is,  from  an  estuhhshed  place  of 
residence ;  for  no  presumption  arises  out 
of  absence  from  any  other  place  :  Stinch- 
field  V.  Emerson,  52  Me.  465;  Spurr  v. 
Trimble,  1  A.  K.  Marsli.  278,  279. 

^  The  mere  absence  witliout  being 
heard  from  for  any  period  short  of  seven 
years  does  not  raise  the  presumption  of 
death  :  Newman  r.  Jenkins,  10  Pick.  515 ; 
Donaldson  v.  Lewis,  7  Mo.  App.  403,  408. 
And  even  when  the  absence  is  for  more 
than  seven  years,  the  attending  circum- 
stances ma}'  be  such  as  to  make  the  pre- 
sumption unreasonable :  Dickcsns  v.  jMiller, 
12  Mo.  App.  408,  41-3.  Where  a  statute 
provides  that  the  presumption  shall  arise 
after  an  absence  from  the  State  for  a  cer- 
tain time,  it  is  held  not  to  exclude  all 
presumptive  evidence  of  death  where  it 
does  not  appear  that  the  party  left  the 
State.  So  held  in  Bank  of  Louisville  v 
Board,  83  Ky.  219,  230 ;  see,  as  to  the 
construction  of  a  similar  statute,  Dickens 
V.  Miller,  supi-a. 

3  Best  on  Ev.  §  409  ;  Whart.  Ev. 
§  1274,  citing  numerous  American  and 


English  cases  ;  3  Redf.  on  Wills,  4,  note  1; 
Perkins's  note  to  Wms.  Ex.  [3181,  note  s. 
"  Ordinarily,  in  the  absence  of  evidence 
to  the  contrary,  the  continuance  of  the 
life  of  an  individual  to  the  common  age 
of  man  will  be  assumed  by  presumption 
of  law.  The  burden  of  proof  lies  upon 
the  party  alleging  the  death  of  the  person  ; 
but  after  an  absence  from  his  home  or 
place  of  residence  seven  years  without 
intelligence  respecting  him,  the  presump- 
tion of  life  will  cease,  and  it  will  be  in- 
cumbent on  the  other  party  asserting  it 
to  prove  that  the  person  was  living  within 
that  time  " :  Howard,  J ,  in  Stevens  v. 
McNamara,  36  Me.  176,  178,  citing  Stark. 
Ev.  (*77),  and  Greenl.  Ev.  §  41,  Ester- 
ly's  Appeal,  109  Pa.  St.  222.  But  mere 
proof  of  absence,  without  proof  that  the 
absentee  was  never  heard  of,  is  insuffi- 
cient to  create  a  presumption  of  death : 
Shriver  v.  State,  65  Md.  278,  287. 

*  And  it  matters  not  that  the  relatives 
maj'  believe  such  person  to  be  alive  : 
Whiteside's  Appeal.  2?,  Pa.  St.  114,  116. 

5  Eagle  I'.  Emmet,  4  Bradf  117  ;  Tilly 


§  207  PROOF    OF   DEATH.  445 

Death  may  also  be  inferred  from  the  absence  of  a  person  from 
his  home,  without  being  heard  from  for  a  period  less  than  seven 
years,  if  proof  be  made  of  other  circumstances  tend-  . 

,  It  may  be 

ing  to  show  his  death. ^  Thus,  it  is  held  that  death  pioveii  by  cir- 
may  be  inferred  from  testimony  showing  that  when 
last  heard  from  the  person  was  in  contact  with  some  specific  peril 
likely  to  produce  death,  or  that  he  disappeared  under  circumstan- 
ces inconsistent  with  a  continuation  of  life,  when  considered  with 
reference  to  those  influences  and  motives  which  ordinarily  control 
and  direct  the  conduct  of  rational  beings.^  Presence  on  board  of 
a  ship  which  sailed  for  a  given  port  at  which  she  did  not  arrive, 
and  was  never  heard  of  for  more  than  double  the  period  of  her 
longest  voyage,  is  said  to  make  the  death  of  all  on  board  of  her 
as  certain  as  anything  not  seen  can  be,  and  the  time  of  such 
death  would  fall  within  the  period  usually  assigned  as  the  longest 
for  such  a  voyage.^  Evidence  of  one's  long  absence  without  com- 
municating with  his  friends,  of  character  and  habits  making  the 
abandonment  of  home  and  family  improbable,  and  of  want  of  all 
motive  or  cause  for  such  abandonment,  was  held  sufficient  to  sup- 
port the  presumption  of  death.* 

The  factum  of  death  may,  it  seems,  be  proved  by  hearsay  evi- 
dence ;  •'  for,  as  has  been  said,  that  a  person  has  been  missing  at 
a  particular  time,  accompanied  with  a  report  and  gen-  ^ven  bv 
oral  belief  of  his  death,  must  be,  in  many  cases,  not  ''^arsay. 

V.  Tilly,  2  Bland  Ch.  436,  444  ;  Kauz  v.  domiciled  abroad,  where  such  reputation 

Orderof  Red  ;Men,  ISMo.  App.  341.    This  has  reached  his  friends  and  relatives  in 

point  is  very  fully  considered  in  Evans  such   form    as    t"o   gain    general    credit." 

r.  Stewart,  81  Va.  724,  735,  quoting  and  Citing  Swinb.,  pt.  G,  §  13.    See  Ringhouse 

reviewing  English  and  American  autiior-  v.  Keever,  49  III.  470. 

ities,  and  announcing  the  true  rule  to  be  ^  j,,  either  case  the  fact  of  death  maybe 

that  the  07uis  of  proving  death   at  any  inferred  at  such  time  within  seven  years 

particular  period,  either  within  the  seven  as  from  the  testimony  shall  seem  most 

years  or  otherwise,  is  not  with  the  party  probable  :    Hough,    J.,    in    Lancaster    v. 

alleging  death  at  such  particular  period,  Washington  Life  Ins.  Co.,  6'J  Mo.  121. 128  ; 

but   is    with   the   person   to    whose   title  Davie  y.  Briggs,  97  U.  S.  628,  634  ;  Wiiite 

that  fact   is   essential :  p.  737.     See   also  ;•.    jNIann,    26    Me    361.    370  ;    Smith   v. 

Piiene's  Trust,  L.  R.  5  Ch.  Ap.  Cas.  139,  Knowlton,  11  N.  H.  191,  197. 

151  ;  Davie  v.  Briggs,  97  U.  S.  628  ;    Hoyt  -  Gerry  i:  Post,  13  How.  Pr.  118,  120  ; 

V.  Newbold,  45  N.  J.  L.  219.  see  also  Johnson  v.  Meritliew,  13  Atl.  R. 

1  3  Redf.  on  Wills,  4,  note  1  :  "  Where  (Me.)  132,  133. 

the  probabilities  of  deatii  are  corroborated  *  Tisdale  v.  Connecticut  Life  Ins.  Co., 

by  circumstances  ;  or  where  reliable  repu-  26  Iowa,  170,  176  ;  Hancock  v.  American 

tation  of  the  fact  and  manner  of  his  death  Life  Ins.  Co.,  62  Mo.  26,  29  ;  Succession 

has  reached  the  neighborhood  of  the  tes-  of  Vogel,  16  La.  An.  139. 
tator's  residence  ;  or,  in  case  of  his  being 


446  PRELTMINAEIES   TO   GRANT   OF   LETTERS.  §  207 

only  the  best,  but  the  only,  evidence  which  can  be  supposed 
to  exist  of  his  death."  ^  It  is  so  held  by  the  Supreme  Court  of 
the  United  States,  in  a  unanimous  opinion,^  and  in  several  of  the 
State  courts.^ 

Presumptions  of  survivorship  among  different  persons  exposed 
to  the  same  peril,  and  not  known  to  have  survived,  are  not  enter- 
No  presnmp-  tained  in  English  or  American  courts.  In  Louisiana 
or°hip  fnmi'r  ^^  ^^  provided,  following  in  this  respect  the  Code  Napo- 
common  peril     jgon,  that  "if  Several  persons,  respectively  entitled  to 

in  Eiif^land  or  '  i  '  r  ./  ^ 

America.  inherit  from  one  another,  happen  to  perish  by  the 

same  event,  such  as  a  wreck,  a  battle,  or  a  conflagration,  without 
any  possibility  of  ascertaining  who  died  first,  the  presumption  of 
survivorship  is  determined  by  the  circumstances  of  the  fact.  In 
the  absence  of  circumstances  of  the  fact,  the  determination  must 
be  decided  by  the  probabilities  resulting  from  the  age,  strength, 
and  difference  of  sex  according  to  the  following  rules.  If  those 
who  have  perished  together  were  under  the  age  of  fifteen  years, 
the  eldest  shall  be  presumed  to  have  survived.  If  both  were 
above  the  age  of  sixty  years,  the  youngest  shall  be  presumed  to 
have  survived.  If  some  were  under  fifteen  and  some  above  sixty, 
the  first  shall  be  presumed  to  have  survived.  If  those  who  have 
perished  together  were  above  the  age  of  fifteen  years  and  under 
sixty,  the  male  must  be  presumed  to  have  survived,  where  there 
was  equality  of  age  or  a  difference  of  less  than  one  year.  If  they 
were  of  the  same  sex,  .  .  .  the  younger  must  be  presumed  to 
have  survived  the  older.""*  The  doctrine  in  England  is  stated, 
in  the  syllabus  to  "the  case  of  Wing  v.  Angrave,^  to  be  as  fol- 
lows: that  "there  is  no  presumption  of  law  arising  from  age 
or  sex  as  to  survivorship  among  persons  whose  death  is  oc- 
casioned by  one  and  the  same  cause  ;  .  .  .  nor  is  there  any  pre- 
sumption of  law  that  all  died  at  the  same  time ;  .  .  .  the  ques- 
tion is  one  of  fact,  depending  w^holly  on  evidence,  and  if  the 
evidence  does  not  establish  the  survivorship  of  any  one,  the  law 
will  treat  it  as  a  matter  incapable  of  being  determined.  The 
onus    prohandi  is  on    the    person    asserting    the    affirmative."'' 

1  Primm  ?'.  Stewart,  7  Tex.  178,  181.        598,  quoting  from  the  Civil  Code  of  Louis- 

2  Scott  V.  Ratcliffe,  5  Pet.  81,  86.  iana,  art.  936-939. 

3  Jackson  i;.  Boneham,  15  Johns.  226,  ^  8  H.  L.  183. 

228  ;  Jackson  v.  Etz,  5  Cow.  314,  319 ;  ^  See   an   interesting  account  of   the 

Ringhouse  v.  Keever,  49  111.  470.  trial  of  Rohinson's   case,   involving   the 

*  Robinson's  Case,  2  South.  L.  R.,  N.  8.,     question  of  survivorship,  in  the  Circuit 


S  208  ESTATES    OF    LIVING    PERSONS.  447 

The  same  doctrine  is  held,  by  autliors  and  judges,  to  prevail  in 
America.^ 

§  208.  Administration  on  the  Estates  of  Living  Persons. —  Probate 
judges  may  be  cunlidently  relied  on  as  furnishing  their  full  quota 
of  bright  illustrations  to  the  truth  of  the  adage  that  errare  hu- 
manum  est^ — yielding  nothing  in  this  respect  to  their  more 
exalted  brethren  presiding  over  ai)pellate  and  nisi  prius  courts. 
To  the  chance  for  mistakes  due  to  this  common  trait  of  humanity 
must  be  superadded  the  peculiar  liability  to  err  arising  out  of  the 
circumstances  under  which  probate  courts  may  be  compelled  to 
decide  — that  is,  judicially  to  ascertain  —  whether  the  evidence 
before  them  is  or  is  not  sufficient  legally  to  establish  the  death  of 
one  who  has  been  long  absent  from  home,  and  whose  property 
and  estate  may  be  left  exposed  and  without  a  legal  owner's  con- 
trol and  protection.  We  have  seen  that,  in  violation  of  the  ordi- 
nary rules  of  evidence,  death  may  be  proved  by  hearsay ,2  by  a 
presumption  based  upon  circumstances  which,  without  the  force 
imparted  to  them  by  the  arbitrary  rule  of  law,  would  not  amount 
•to  proof,  and  with  such  sanction  must  still  fail  sometimes  to  con- 
vince.^ There  is,  moreover,  the  possibility  that  the  witnesses  are 
themselves  mistaken  as  to  the  facts  to  which  they  testify,  or  may, 
in  furtherance  of  some  fraudulent  scheme,  wilfully  lie.  No  char- 
itably disposed  person  will  demand  infallibility  in  the  judgment 
which  a  probate  court  may  find  itself  compelled  to  render  under 
such  circumstances ;  nor  does  it  seem  wise,  or  rational,  to  condi- 
tion the  validity  of  such  a  judgment  upon  the  omniscience  of 
the  iudu-e  rendering  it.     Yet  the  weight  of  authoritv  Death  of  the 

''        -  ^  1     '       1         1  "p    testator  or  in- 

is  very  decidedly  to  the  effect  "  that  the  decease  ot  testate  ncces- 
the  supposed  decedent  is  a  prerequisite  to  the  juris-  jurfsdictiou. 

Court  of  the  United  States  for  the  District  cing  the  law  as  above  stated:   "In  the 

of  Louisiana,  published  in  the  Soutliorn  absence    of    evidence    from    which    the 

Law  lleview,  supra,  and  givinfx  a  concise  contrary   may   be   inferred,    all   may   be 

and  comprehensive  review  of  the  doctrine  considered  to  have  perished  at  the  same 

of  survivorship  under  the  civil  law,  and  moment;    not   because   the   fact   is    pre- 

in  the  different  countries  of  Europe.     It  sumcd,  but  because,  from  failure  to  prove 

was  iield  in  this  case  that  the  provisions  the  contrary  by  those  asserting  it,  prop- 

of  the  Louisiana  Code  did  not  apply,  and  erty  rights  must  necessarily  be  settled  on 

the  instructions  to  the  jury  were  in  con-  that   theory"   (p.  133  et  scq.)  ;   Newell  v. 

sonance    with    the    views    announced   in  Nichols,  75  N.  Y.  78;  see  also  3  Kedf.  on 

Wing  I'.  Angrave,  supra.  Wills,  5,  note  1. 

1  Johnson  r.  Merithew,  10  Atl.  R.  (Me.)  2  Ante,  §  207,  pp.  445,  446. 

132,  in  which  the  court  says  after  announ-  ^  Ibid.,  p.  444,  note  3. 


448 


PRELIMINARIES    TO    GRANT   OF    LETTERS. 


§208 


diction  of  the  court,  and  that  (if  still  living)  he  is  wholly  un- 
affected by  the  })roceedings  for  the  settlement  of  his  estate."  ^ 

The  doctrine  that  the  grant  of  letters  testamentary,  or  of  admin- 
istration, on  the  estate  of  a  person  in  fact  living,  but  supposed  to 
be  dead,  is  an  act  beyond  the  jurisdiction  of  the  court,  and  there- 
fore so  utterly  void  that  no  person  is  protected  in  dealing  with 
the  executor  or  administrator,  even  while  his  letters  remain  unre- 
voked, is  firmly  adhered  to  in  nearly  all  of  the  States  in  which  the 
question  has  arisen,  and  seems  to  command  the  acquiescence  of 
even  text-writers.  Judge  Rcdfield,  the  illustrious  author  of  an 
American  work  on  Wills,  for  many  years  one  of  the  judges  of  the 
Supreme  Court  of  Vermont,  and  one  of  the  editors  of  the  Amer- 
ican Law  Register  duriug  the  last  fifteen  years  of  his  life,  rejoices 
in  the  recognition  of  this  doctrine  ;^  Freeman  is  content  to  mcn- 


1  Freem.on  Judgm.§319a.  Mr.  Free- 
man cites  the  following  cases :  Melia  v. 
Simmons,  45  Wis.  334;  Jocliuni.sen  v. 
Suffolk  Savings  Bank,  3  Allen,  87  ;  Mc- 
Plierson  r.  Cunliff,  11  S.  &  Pv.  422  ;  Wales 
V.  Willard,  2  ]\Iass.  UO  ;  Griffith  v.  Fra- 
zier,  8  Cranch.  9  ;  Allen  v.  Dundas,  3  T. 
R.  125;  Duncan  r.  Stewart,  25  Ala.  408  ; 
Peebles'  Appeal,  15  S.  &  R.  42;  Morgan 
r.  Dodge,  44  N.  H.  259;  Bolton  v.  Jacks, 
6  Rob.  1G6.  Other  decisions  in  the  same 
direction  will  be  noticed  /w/ya.  With  the 
exception  of  the  first  two  of  the  cases 
mentioned  in  this  note,  which  directly 
adjudicate  the  question  under  considera- 
tion, they  all  contain  either  mere  dicta, 
or  adjudications  upon  cognate  points  only. 

2  In  his  review  of  a  New  York  case 
liolding  the  contrary,  which  he  charac- 
terizes "  as  probably  without  a  precedent, 
either  in  English  or  American  jurispru- 
dence." The  able  critic,  whose  lamented 
death  is  announced  in  the  same  number 
of  the  Law  Register  which  contains  the 
review  spoken  of,  frankly  admits,  how- 
ever, that  he  "  cannot  but  see  that  there 
is  really  nothing  intrinsically  absurd  in 
the  decision,  when  looked  at  merely  upon 
the  principles  involved  in  it."  "  It  is 
only  declaring  probate  courts  in  the  State 
of  New  York  to  be  courts  of  general 
jurisdiction  and  entitled  to  the  same  con- 
clusive presumptions  which  we  apply  to 
the  superior  courts  of  the  State  or  nation, 
and  to  superior  courts  of  general  jurisdic- 


tion." "  Within  certain  limits,"  he  con- 
tends, "  this  presumption  would  no  doubt 
prove  salutary."  He  strongly  commends 
the  collateral  unimpeachability  of  the 
jurisdiction  of  courts  of  probiite,  so  far 
as  it  depends  upon  domicil  within  a" 
particular  district  in  the  State,  asserting 
that  tlie  adjudicated  cases  to  this  extent 
are  very  numerous,  and  have  never  been 
questioned  to  his  knowledge  (a  statement 
indicating  that  he  had  not  examined  the 
cases  cited  in  the  opinion  which  he  was 
reviewing);  and  continues  :  "But  to  be 
extended  to  a  case  where  no  court  could 
possibly  gain  jurisdiction  over  the  sub- 
ject matter,  the  very  casus  belli  or  con- 
tingency upon  which  the  jurisdiction 
attaches  not  having  yet  transpired,  we 
may,  as  it  seems  to  us,  well  demand  some 
more  compelling  reasons  for  the  exten- 
sion than  any  presented  by  the  learned 
judse  in  the  principal  case"  .  15  Am.  L. 
R.  212  e«  seq. 

If  "  there  is  really  nothing  intrinsically 
absurd  in  the  decision,"  (holding  the  judg- 
ment of  a  surrogate  as  to  the  death  of  an 
absentee  conclusive  in  all  collateral  pro- 
ceedings,) "  when  looked  at  merely  upon  the 
principle  involred  in  it,"  one  is  tempted  to 
ask.  Why  should  we  seek  beyond  the 
"principle  involved"  to  find  the  absurd- 
ity? and.  Whether,  if  justice,  convenience, 
and  consistency  require  a  rule  of  law  not 
objectionable  on  principle,  there  be  any 
basis  left  upon  which  to  object  to  it  1 


§  209  INVALIDITY    OF   SUCH   ADMINISTRATION.  449 

tion  the  direction  in  which  the  current  of  decisions  runs ;  ^  and 
Schouler  disposes  of  the  question  in  two  lines,  showing  his  assent 
to  the  doctrine  that  a  grant  of  administration  upon  the  estate  of 
a  living  person  is  utterly  void,  and  ])rotects  no  one  dealing  with 
the  appointee.2  Mr.  Gary  finds  it  "  of  course  "  that  "  the  person 
himself,  if  he  returns  alive,  is  not  bound  by  the  adjudication,  not 
being  a  party  in  any  sense  "  ;  but  deems  it  a  solecism  to  say  that 
a  court  does  not  adjudicate  upon  the  primary  jurisdictional  fact 
upon  which  it  proceeds  to  act.^  The  subject,  however,  is  one  of 
such  grave  importance,  and  the  anomaly  presented  so  glaring  and 
deplorable,  that  a  more  minute  investigation  of  the  doctrine  tlian 
would  otherwise  be  consistent  with  the  scope  of  this  work  may  be 
pardoned. 

§  209.  Reasons  for  the  Invalidity  of  such  Administration.  —  The 
courts  holding  void  the  grant  of  letters  on  the  estate  of  a  person 
not  really,  but  only  supposed  to  be  dead,  base  the  necessity  of 
their  ruling  upon  the  lack  of  jurisdiction  in  the  probate  court. 
This  depends,  it  is  said,  upon  the  fact  of  death  :  there  being  no 
death,  there  is  no  estate  to  administer,  hence  no  basis  for  the 
jurisdiction  of  the  probate  court.  The  casual  remark  of  Justices 
Buller  and  Ashhurst,  in  the  case  of  Allen  v.  Dundas,^  is  generally 
referred  to  as  authority.  It  is  to  be  observed  that  this  case  turned 
upon  the  validity  of  an  executor's  acts  under  a  will  which  had 
received  probate,  but  was  subsequently  found  to  have  been  forged. 
The  judges  emphatically  sustained  the  validity  of  the  probate,  and 
of  all  acts  done  thereunder,^  and  then  remark  :  "  The  case  of  the 
probate  of  a  supposed  will  during  the  life  of  the  party  may  be 
distinguished  from  the  present,  because  during  his  life  the  ecclesi- 
astical court  has  no  jurisdiction.^^  A  similar  remark  was  made 
by  Chief  Justice  Marshall  in  the  case  of  Griffith  v.  Frazier,^  to 
illustrate  the  invalidity  of  the  judgment  of  a  court  acting  upon  a 
matter  not  within  its  jurisdiction :  "  Suppose  administration  to  be 

1  Supra,  p.  448,  note  1.  *  3  T.  H.  125,  129,  130. 

2  Sclioul.  Ex.  §  160.  s  Justice  Asliliurst  concluded  his  re- 
8  Gary,   Pr.   L.   §  287,  note  59.     His     marks  in  these  words  :  "  But  the  founda- 

commentary  concerning  the  adjudication  tion  of  my  opinion  is,  that  ever;/  person  is 
is  directed  to  the  case  of  Mutual  Benefit  bound  bi/  the  judicial  acts  of  a  court  having 
Life  Ins.  Co.  v.  Tisdale,  91  U.  S.  238,  in  competent  authority  ;  and  during  tlie  exist- 
which  it  is  held  tliat  the  probate  court  ence  of  sucli  judicial  act  the  law  will  pro- 
does   not    adjudicate    the   death   of   the  tect  every  person  obeying  it." 
person  on  whose  estate  the   letters  are  ^  8  Cranch,  9,  23. 
granted  :   p.  243. 
VOL.  I. —29 


450  PRELIMINARIES   TO   GRANT   OP   LETTERS.  §  209 

granted  upon  the  estate  of  a  person  not  really  dead.  The  act,  all 
will  admit,  is  totally  void."  In  this  case  the  question  was  upon 
the  validity  of  a  judgment  suffered  by  an  administrator  cum  testa- 
mento  annexo,  who  had  obtained  letters  while  a  regularly  appointed 
executor  had  charge  of  the  estate.  The  question  under  considera- 
tion was  before  the  court  in  neither  of  these  two  cases. 

In  the  case  of  Burns  v.  Van  Loan,i  the  dictum  of  Judge  Marshall 
is  quoted,  but  the  judgment  was  not  based  upon  this  principle, 
there  being  a  statute  in  Louisiana  regulating  the  property  of 
an  absentee,  which,  as  well  as  the  requirement  of  proof  of  death, 
had  been  ignored  in  the  grant  of  letters,  for  which  reason  the 
letters  were  held  void. 

But  in  the  case  of  Moore  v.  Smith,^  Wardlaw,  J.,  announced  the 
law  to  be,  as  intimated  in  the  dicta  mentioned,  that  there  was  no 
jurisdiction  in  the  probate  court  unless  there  was  in  truth  a 
deceased  person.  He  calls  attention  to  the  origin  of  the  dicta,  and 
expresses  his  surprise  that  no  case  involving  the  exact  point  was 
to  be  met  with  in  the  books  ;  and  the  court  unanimously  held, 
upon  the  return  of  an  absentee  upon  whose  estate  letters  had  been 
granted,  that  such  letters,  and  the  distribution  made  thereunder, 
and  the  sale  of  property  so  received  by  a  distributee,  were  void. 
In  the  same  year  the  Supreme  Court  of  North  Carolina  held  evi- 
dence that  one  upon  whose  estate  administration  had  been 
granted  was  alive,  to  be  admissible  in  a  suit  upon  the  adminis- 
tration bond,  on  the  ground  that,  if  such  person  were  alive,  the 
bond  would  be  void.^ 

In  Jochumsen  v.  Suffolk  Savings  Bank,*  the  defendant  was  held 
liable  to  one  upon  whose  estate  letters  had  been  granted  after  his 
absence  for  twelve  years,  for  a  debt  which  he  had  already  paid  to 
the  administrator  so  appointed.  Judge  Dewey  reaches  his  con- 
clusion of  the  utter  invalidity  of  the  appointment,  and  of  every- 
thing done  by  virtue  thereof,  from  the  previous  Massachusetts 
cases  holding  void  the  appointment  of  an  administrator  by  the 
court  of  a  county  in  which  the  decedent  did  not  at  the  time  of  his 
death  reside;^  and  points  for  confirmation  of  his  view  to  the  dicta 

1  29  La.  An.  560,  564.  announced  in  these  cases  had  then  been 

2  11  Rich.  L.  569,  572.  Decided  in  generally  receded  from  in  most  of  the 
1858.  States,  and  had  received  the  signal  dis- 

8  State  V.  White,  7  Ired.  L.  116.  approbation  of  the  people  of  Massachu- 

*  3  Alien,  87.    Decided  in  1861.  setts  more  than  a  quarter  of  a  century 

5  It  should  be  noted  that  the  principle     before  in  a  statute  peremptorily  forbid- 


§  209 


INVALTDITY   OF   SUCH    ADMINISTRATION. 


451 


mentioned.  He  also  mentions,  as  one  of  the  strong  reasons  for 
holding  the  question  of  jurisdiction  not  concluded,  that  the  only 
opi)ortunity  for  reversing  or  modifying  a  decree  of  the  court  of 
probate  is  the  limited  one  of  appeal  within  thirty  days,  or  by  per- 
mission of  the  Supreme  Court  within  one  year.i  Jt  is  significant 
that  subsequent  to  the  rendition  of  this  decision  provision  was 
made  by  statute  for  the  relief  of  any  person  interested  in  or 
affected  by  the  act  of  an  administrator,  etc.,  under  an  appointment 
void  for  the  want  of  jurisdiction,  by  proceeding  in  equity,  with 
power  in  the  court  to  set  aside  or  confirm  in  whole  or  in  part 
such  act  or  proceeding ;  and  making  such  administrator  and  his 
sureties  accountable  for  all  money  or  property  coming  into  his 
hands  as  such.^ 

Other  adjudications  on  this  question  then  followed  in  rapid 
succession,  and  all  of  them,  with  a  single  exception,  holding 
such  administrations,  and  everything  done  in  consequence  thereof, 
absolutely  void :  United  States  v.  Payne,^  Melia  v.  Simmons,* 
D'Arusment  v.  Jones,^  Lavin  v.  The  Emigrant  Industrial  Savings 
Bank,6  Stevenson  v.  Superior  Court,"  Devlin  v.  Commonwealth,^ 


ding  the  assumption  of  jurisdiction  by  a 
judge  of  probate,  so  far  as  it  depends  on 
the  place  of  residence  of  any  person, 
from  being  contested  in  any  suit  or  pro- 
ceeding whatever,  except  in  an  appeal 
from  the  original  case,  or  when  tiie  want 
of  jurisdiction  appears  on  the  same  rec- 
ord: Rev.  St.  Mass.  1830,  ch.  83,  §  12. 
Tliis  statute  is  the  law  of  Massachusetts 
to-day,  and  was  the  law  at  the  moment 
when  Judge  Dewey  pronounced  the  above 
opinion.  It  was  recommended  by  the 
commissioner^  as  a  remedy  for  the  evils 
consequent  upon  the  collateral  impeach- 
ability  of  the  judgments  of  probate 
courts.  Its  wisdom  is  commended  by 
the  courts  of  Maine,  which  incorporated 
tliis  provision  into  her  statutes,  (Record 
V.  Howard,  58  Me.  22-5,  228,)  as  well  as  by 
those  of  ^Massachusetts  (McFeely  v.  Scott, 
128  Mass.  16,  18)  The  mischievous  con- 
sequences of  the  decisions  on  which  Judge 
Dewey  relies  were  the  subject  of  com- 
ment long  before :  see  the  remarks  of 
the  editor  reporting  Thompson  v.  Brown, 
16  Mass    172,  180. 

1  But  this  "  strong  reason  "  is  thor- 
oughly refuted  by  the  same  court  in  a 


later  case.  In  Waters  v.  Stickney,  12 
Allen,  1,  15,  says  Gray,  J.:  "  ....  it  is 
impossible  to  deny  the  power  of  a  court 
of  probate  ...  to  correct  errors  arising 
out  of  fraud  or  mistake  in  its  own  de- 
crees. This  power  does  not  make  the 
decree  of  a  court  of  probate  less  conclu- 
sive in  any  other  court,  or  in  any  way 
impair  tlie  probate  jurisdiction  ;  but  ren- 
ders that  jurisdiction  more  complete  and 
effectual,  and  by  enabling  a  court  of 
probate  to  correct  mistakes  and  supply 
defects  in  its  own  decrees,  better  enti- 
tles them  to  be  conclusive  upon  other 
courts." 

^  Laws  of  Mass.  187.3,  pp.  684,  685. 

8  4  Dillon,  387.     Decided  in  1877. 

4  45  Wis.  334.     Decided  in  1878. 

5  4  Lea,  251.     Decided  in  1880. 

6  18  Blatchf  1.     Decided  in  1880. 
'  62  Cal.  60.     Decided  in  1882. 

8  101  Pa.  St.  273.  Decided  in  1882. 
In  1885  the  legislature  of  this  State  regu- 
lated the  grant  of  letters  on  the  estates 
of  persons  absent  for  more  than  seven 
years,  and  provideil  for  the  safety  of  the 
interests  of  all  parties  concerned  :  Bright. 
Purd.  Dig.,  Suppl.  1885,  p.  2184  et  seq. 


452  PRELIMINARIES   TO   GRANT   OF   LETTERS.  §  210 

and  Thomas  v.  The  People.^  In  all  of  them  the  same  reason  is 
given  for  the  ruling,  to  wit,  the  want  of  jurisdiction  over  the 
subject  matter ;  the  dicta  by  Justices  Ashhurst,  Bullcr,  and  Mar- 
shall, and  similar  remarks  in  a  number  of  other  cases,^  are  in- 
variably referred  to.  The  same  doctrine  is  announced  in  a  dictum 
by  Randall,  C.  J.,  of  the  Supreme  Court  of  Florida,^  quoting  a 
similar  dictum  from  a  case  decided  in  Virginia,  to  the  effect  that 
there  are  two  exceptions  to  the  conclusiveness  of  the  judgments 
of  probate  courts  collaterally  :  "  As  where  the  supposed  testator 
or  intestate  is  alive  ;  or  where,  if  dead,  he  has  already  a  personal 
representative  in  being  when  the  order  is  made  granting  admin- 
istration on  his  estate."  *  So  also  in  Texas.^  An  English  case  is 
also  mentioned  as  holding  void  the  probate  of  a  will  upon  motion 
of  the  supposed  deceased  testator  himself.^ 

The  opinion  in  the  case  from  Illinois,^  which  was  thoroughly 
argued  on  both  sides,  and  received  the  careful  and  intelligent  con- 
sideration of  Mr.  Justice  Mulkey,  may  be  looked  upon  as  stating 
all  that  can  be  said  in  support  of  the  doctrine  announced.  The 
general  proposition  that  under  our  government  no  one  can  be 
deprived  of  life,  liberty,  or  property  without  due  process  of  law, 
is  relied  on,  and  held  to  be  inconsistent  with  the  validity  of  a 
judicial  act  as  against  one  who  had  no  notice  of  the  proceeding, 
and  who  was  in  no  sense  a  party  thereto  ;  and  this  although  the 
grant  of  letters  upon  an  estate  be  deemed  a  proceeding  m  rem. 
The  same  thing  is  necessary  to  give  the  court  jurisdiction  :  there 
must  be  a  dead  mati's  estate  ;  if  there  is  none  such,  there  is  no 
jurisdiction,  and  consequently  no  power  in  the  court  to  declare 
such.^ 

§  210.  Cases  holding  Administration  of  Estates  of  Living  Per- 
sons valid.  —  The  only  case  met  with  directly  holding  that,  so  far 

1  107  111.  517.     Decided  in  1883.  ^  "  In  every   proceeding  in  rem,  and 

^  Some  of  them  referred  to  by  Free-  in  every  case  in  tlie  nature  of  a  proceed- 

man,  in  his  work  on  Judgments,  and  cited  ing  in   rem,  there   is  some  great  central 

ante,  §  208.  controlling  fact  upon  which  the  jurisdic- 

3  In  Epping  v.  Robinson,  21  Fla.  36,  tion  or  power  in  the  court  to  act  at  all 

49.     Decided  in  1884.  depends,  and  such  fact  must  have  an  act- 

*  Andrews  v.  Avory,  14   Gratt.  229,  ual  existence,  otherwise  the  jurisdiction 

236,  per  Moncure,  J.  (1858).  will  fail":  p.  526  of  the  opinion,  citing 

&  Martin   v.   Robinson,   67  Tex.   368,  Thompson   v.  Wliitman,  18  Wall.   457  ; 

375  (1887).  Wheelwriglit  v.  Depeyster,  1  John.  471; 

6  In  re  Napier,  1  Phillim.  83.  Rose  v.  Himeley,  4  Cranch,  241, 269. 

■^  Thomas  v.  The  People,  supra. 


§  210  ADMINISTRATION   NOT  IMPEACHABLE.  453 

at  least  as  to  protect  innocent  persons  acting  upon  the  faith  of 
letters  of  administration  issued  by  the  surrogate  upon  due  proof 
as  to  the  death  of  the  intestate  therein  named,  such  letters  are 
conclusive  evidence  of  the  authority  of  the  administrator  to  act, 
until  the  order  granting  them  is  reversed  on  appeal,  or  the  letters 
are  revoked  or  vacated,  is  that  of  Roderigas  v.  East  River  Savings 
Institution.!  It  was  decided  in  face  of  the  case  of  Jochumsen  v. 
Suffolk  Savings  Bank,^  and  of  the  dicta  in  Allen  v.  Dundas  and 
Griffith  V.  Frazier,  as  well  as  the  case  of  Bolton  v.  Jacks,^  which, 
holding  the  probate  of  a  will  of  a  testator  not  at  the  time  of  his 
death  an  inhabitant  of  the  county  in  which  the  probate  is  granted 
to  be  void,  is  pronounced  unsound.  The  doctrine  announced  com- 
manded the  assent  of  but  four  of  the  seven  judges  of  the  Court  of 
Appeals,  three  of  them  expressly  dissenting,  but  giving  no  rea- 
sons ;  and  was  held  to  be  in  violation  of  the  Fourteenth  Amend- 
ment to  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  in  Lavin  v.  The 
Emigrant  Industrial  Savings  Bank,*  the  subject  being  elaborately 
discussed  by  Choate,  J.,who  concludes  that  "the  proceeding  taken 
under  the  laws  of  New  York  ...  is  void  as  to  him  [the  returned 
absentee]  because  it  would  deprive  him  of  his  property  without 
'  due  process  of  law.'  "  ^ 

The  decision  in  the  Roderigas  case  excited  considerable  criti- 
cism at  the  time.  Judge  Redfield  concludes  a  review  of  it  in 
these  words  :  "  When  we  come  to  find  all  this  set  aside  and  ig- 
nored by  one  of  the  ablest  courts  in  the  country,  and  the  oppo- 
site views  maintained  and  applied  to  a  state  of  facts  where  no 
court  could  possibly  claim  jurisdiction  any  more  than  it  could 
obtain  jurisdiction  of  one  who  was  never  born,  we  must  confess 
to  a  new  sense  of  uncertainty  of  the  law."  ^  The  critic  of  the 
American  Law  Review  speaks  of  it  as  "  a  most  extraordinary  de- 
cision, .  .  .  contrary  both  to  authority  and  principle,"  says  that 
"  the  proposition  that  a  man  cannot  assert  in  court  his  own  exist- 
ence, because  a  court  of  probate  has  granted  administration  of  his 
estate  supposing  him  to  be  dead,  seems  so  preposterous,  that  it 
would  hardly  be  entitled  to  serious  consideration  if  it  had  not 

1  63  N.  Y.  460.  Decided  in  1875.             sen  tee,    for   which    reason    he   was    not 

2  3  Allen,  87.  bound  by  tlie  judgment  of  the  surrogate 

3  6  Eobt.  166.  on  the  question  of  iiis  death. 

4  18  Blatclif.  1.  ^  15  Am.  L.  Reg.  212.     See  for  further 
*  Ibid.,  p.  36.  The  principal  reason    e.iftracts   from   tliis   review,  ante,   §  208, 

given  is  the  want  of   notice  to  the  ab-     p.  448,  note  2. 


454  PRELIMINARIES   TO   GRANT   OF   LETTERS.  §  210 

been  put  forward  by  the  bigiicst  court  of  New  York,"  and  con- 
cludes by  adopting  the  sarcasms  of  Judge  Redfield  in  the  review 
above  noticed.^  In  several  of  the  cases  mentioned  in  tlie  previous 
section,  a  later  decision  by  the  same  court  in  the  same  case  is 
cited  in  a  manner  from  which  it  might  be  inferred  that  the  New 
York  Court  of  Appeals  had  receded  from  the  position  above 
announced ;  but  this  is  not  so.  In  the  latter  case ,2  the  court  not 
only  refuse  to  review  the  former  on  its  merits,  but  expressly  affirm 
it,  distinguishing  it  from  the  latter  in  two  particulars.  In  the 
former  case  it  was  held  that  letters  issued  from  the  surrogate 
upon  due  proof  of  the  fact  of  death,  and  were  therefore  conclusive 
authority  to  the  administrator,  while  in  the  latter  it  appeared 
affirmatively,  first,  that  the  letters  had  not  been  issued  by  the 
surrogate,  but  by  the  clerk,  who  was  not  authorized  thereto  ;  and 
next,  that  no  proof  of  death  whatever  had  been  offered  or  made  ; 
for  these  reasons  the  court  unanimously  held  that  the  surrogate 
had  not  obtained  jurisdiction,  and  the  letters  were  void.^ 

It  is  nevertheless  true,  that  the  opinion,  which  was  delivered  by 
one  of  the  judges  dissenting  from  the  former  case,  emphasizes  by 
its  reasoning  and  quotation  of  authorities  the  views  of  those  op- 
posed to  the  doctrine  of  the  majority,  thus  showing  that  the 
dissenting  judges,  having  been  "convinced  against  their  will,  were 
of  the  same  opinion  still."  The  laconic  announcement  at  the 
conclusion,  that  "  all  concur.  Miller,  J.,  concurring  in  result,"  is 
eloquent  of  the  protest  of  the  latter  against  the  reasoning  of  the 
Chief  Justice. 

On  the  other  hand,  not  even  the  formidable  array  of  authority  in 
support  of  the  doctrine  suggested  in  3  Term  Reports  and  8  Cranch 
—  imposing  not  more  by  the  number  than  by  the  distinguished 
character  for  ability  and  learning  of  its  adherents  —  deterred 
thinkers  from  investigating  the  problem  for  themselves,  and,  un- 
warned by  the  fate  of  Galileo,*  to  publish  their  convictions  to  the 
world.  Thus  the  doctrine  of  absolute  nullity  is  analyzed  by  a 
writer  in  the  American  Law  Review,^  who  finds  that  upon  princi- 
ple there  is  something  to  be  said  in  favor  of  the  opposite  view, 

1  10  Am.  L.  Rev.  787,  789.  "  but  to  show  that  he  never  exerci.sed  his 

2  Roderigas  v.  East  River  Savings  judgment,  that  he  never  acted":  p.  322 
Institution,  76  N.  Y.  316,  319.  of  the  opinion. 

3  "It  is  not  sought  to  impeach  the  *  "  E  pur  si  muove .' " 

judgment  of  tlie  surrogate,"  says  Church,  ^  Vol.  xiv.  p.  337,  May,  1880,  essay  by 

C.  J.,  in  giving  the  opinion  of  the  court,     Jeremiah  Smith. 


§  211  CONCLUSIVENESS   OF   JUDGMENTS.  455 

which  has  been  regarded  until  i-ecently  as  "  too  absurd  for  any 
one  to  entertain."  ^  His  conclusions  are  adverse  to  the  current 
of  authorities.  And  in  a  late  case  decided  in  New  Jersey,  Chief 
Justice  Beasley,  speaking  for  the  whole  court,  says,  "  It  is  not 
necessary  to  affirm  the  doctrine  of  this  re])orted  case,  though  in 
passing  it  may  not  be  out  of  place  to  remark  that  its  reasoning, 
notwithstanding  the  adverse  criticisms  to  which  it  has  been  sub- 
jected, appears  to  be  of  great  weight."  ^  And  Dillon,  J.,  render- 
ing the  opinion  in  United  States  v.  Payne,^  says  that  much  may 
be  said  on  both  sides  of  the  question,  and  that  Roderigas  v.  East 
River  Savings  Institution  may  be  distinguished  on  solid  grounds 
from  the  case  under  consideration  by  him.  "  It  was  there  held 
that  payment  by  a  debtor  in  good  faith  to  an  administrator  was 
valid,  and  would  protect  the  debtor  against  a  second  payment, 
although  the  supposed  intestate  was  alive  at  the  time,  and  the 
letters  of  administration  were  subsequently  revoked  for  that  rea- 
son. The  debtor  was  innocent,  and  acted  on  the  faith  of  the 
grant  of  administration  of  the  proper  court.  It  may  be  a  different 
question  when  it  arises  between  an  innocent  third  party  and  the 
administrator  himself,  which  is  the  present  case." 

§  211.  Conclusiveness  of  Judgments.  —  The  argument  of  abso- 
lute nullity  of  the  authority  of  administrators  over  the  estates  of 
living  persons  is  stated  thus :  Courts  of  probate  are  empowered 
to  grant  administration  only  upon  the  estates  of  deceased  persons  ; 
they  have  no  authority  to  grant  administration  on  the  estates  of 
living  persons ;  hence,  if  the  supposed  intestate  was  in  fact  alive, 
the  grant  is  absolutely  void  for  the  want  of  jurisdiction  over  the 
subject  matter.*  Unless  this  statement  assumes  that  jurisdiction 
over  the  estates  of  deceased  persons  inheres  in  probate  courts  as  a 
matter  of  law,  —  requiring,  indeed  permitting,  no  inquiry  by  such 
court,  at  least  no  adjudication,  as  to  the  factum  of  death,  —  it 
must  be  understood  as  referring  to  the  estates  of  persons  adjudged 
to  be  deceased.  If  such  be  the  scope  of  the  jurisdiction  of  probate 
courts,  —  to  grant  administration  on  the  estates  of  persons  ad- 

1  In  this  respect  Judge  Redfield  agrees  by  courts,  and  holds  payment  by  a  debtor 

with  Mr.  Smith  ;  see  ante,  p.  448,  note  2.  to  the  administrator  of  his  creditor,  ad- 

-  Plume  V.  Howard  Savings  Institution,  judged  to  be  dead  on  presumption  after 

46  N.  J.  L.  211,  230.     The  opinion  pro-  seven  years' absence,  to  entitle  the  debtor 

ceeds  to  comment  on  the  necessity  of  vin-  to  an  absolute  discharge, 

dicafing  the  conclusive  validity  as  against  ^  4.  Dillon,  387,  389. 

collateral  attack  of  judgments  rendered  *  14  Am.  L.  Rev.  338. 


456  PRELIMINARIES   TO   GRANT   OF   LETTERS.  §  211 

judged  to  be  dead,  —  it  must  follow  that  the  grant  is  lawful,  and 
that  the  title  of  the  administrator  and  of  all  holding  under  him 
to  any  property  belonging  to  such  estate  is  unassailable,  even 
though  the  person  supposed  dead  should  return  "  in  the  flesh " ; 
V)ecause  he  was  adjudged  dead,  and  the  court  had  power  so  to 
adjudge.  This  is  the  conclusion  reached  in  the  case  of  Roderigas.^ 
The  only  logical  escape  from  it  is  the  alternative,  that  no  adjudi- 
cation is  necessary  to  determine  under  which  of  the  two  classes 
of  subject  matter  the  estate  is  subsumable :  whether  under  that 
of  deceased  persons,  in  which  case  jurisdiction  follows ;  or  that  of 
living  persons,  in  which  case  it  does  not.  But  this  alternative 
is  imaginable  only  upon  condition  that  the  question  of  the  life 
or  death  of  the  testator  or  intestate  is  a  pure  question  of  law,  of 
which  courts  will  take  judicial  cognizance  ;  ^  an  assumption  vying 
in  absurdity  at  least  with  that  ascribed  to  the  Roderigas  case,  for 
it  could  apply  only  to  omniscient  courts. 

To  condition  the  validity  of  a  judgment  upon  a  contingency  in 
the  womb  of  the  future  which  may  or  may  not  arrive,  —  to  ascribe 
to  probate  courts  the  power  to  inquire  into  and  judicially  deter- 
mine upon  the  factum  of  death  if  the  party  shall  not  thereafter 
return  alive,  and  to  deny  the  existence  of  such  power  if  he  shall 
afterward  be  proved  to  be  not  dead,  —  is  to  introduce  a  new  prin- 
ciple into  the  science  of  the  law,  a  new  class  of  judgments  (^sui 
generis,  it  is  to  be  hoped),  which,  ignis  fatuus  like,  are  apt  to  lure 
confiding  persons  into  peril ;  —  a  logic  equal  to  that  of  the  sports- 
man who  so  meant  to  shoot  as  to  kill  if  what  he  aimed  at  was  a 
wild  turkey,  and  to  miss  if  it  was  his  neighbor's  goose. 

The  binding  validity  of  the  judgment  of  a  court  of  competent 
jurisdiction  cannot  be  ignored  without  ignoring  the  validity  of  the 
law  itself.  The  judge  is  but  the  mouthpiece  of  the  State :  he 
speaks,  not  the  whim  or  even  the  solemn  conviction  of  an  indi- 
vidual, but  the  sentence  of  the  law,  to  the  observance  of  which  the 
State  holds  all  its  citizens,  and  stands  pledged  to  compel  them 
to  it  by  the  very  terms  of  its  existence.^  If,  then,  the  probate 
court  acts  within  its  jurisdiction  in  granting  letters  of  adminis- 
tration upon  the  estate  of  one  whom,  for  the  purposes  of  such 

1  63  N.  Y.  460,  470,  opinion  of  Miller,  Smith's   Lead.   Cas.,  7th   Am.   ed.   632  ; 

J. ;  76  N.  Y.  316,  322,  opinion  of  Church,  Freem.  on  Judgm.,  1st  ed.  §  608  ;  Starkie 

C.  J.  on  Ev.  374. 

■i  14  Am.  L.  Rev.  338,  referring  to  2  a  Ante,  §  11. 


§  211  CONCLUSIVENESS   OF   JUDGMENTS.  457 

administration,  the  law  has  pronounced  dead,  such  letters  are  con- 
clusive of  the  title  of  the  administrator  to  all  the  personal  property 
of  such  person  ;  payment  to  him  of  any  debt  due  to  the  person 
legally  deemed  to  be  dead  is  as  valid  as  if  made  to  such  person  liv- 
ing, and  title  to  such  property  passes  as  fully  to  the  administrator's 
vendee,  or  distributee,  as  if  aliened  or  donated  by  the  intestate  or 
testator  himself,  unless  the  transaction  be  invalid  for  some  other 
reason.^  If  lawful  at  the  time,  nothing  which  may  happen  subse- 
quently can  affect  the  rights  of  parties  defined  and  determined, 
"  for  it  is  a  principle  of  manifest  justice,  as  well  as  of  established 
law,  that  rights  acquired  by  a  third  person,  in  the  enforcement  of 
a  decree  of  a  court  of  general  jurisdiction,  shall  endure,  though 
the  decree  be  afterwards  reversed."  ^  Justice  Ashhurst  —  whose 
allusion  to  the  invalidity  of  administration  on  a  living  person's 
estate,  (repeated  a  few  years  later  by  Chief  Justice  Marshall,)  in 
illustrating  an  argument,  has  probably  given  rise  to  the  doctrine 
under  consideration  —  most  emphatically  asserts  the  rights  of 
those  who  rely  upon  the  authority  of  a  judicial  act:  "  Every  person 
is  bound  by  the  judicial  act  of  a  court  having  competent  authority ; 
and  during  the  existence  of  such  judicial  act  the  law  will  protect 

1  "  A  court  of  general  jurisdiction  may  has  inquired,  his  conviction  is  conchisive 

misconstrue,  misapply,  or  plainly  disobey  of  it."     Park,  J.  (p.  440)  says:  "  All  the 

the  law,  in  pronouncing  judgment,  yet  so  cases  from  Hardress  downward  concur  in 

long  as  its  judgment  remains  unreversed  one  uniform  principle,  that,  where  a  niagis- 

it  unalterably  binds  the  parties,  and  pro-  trate  has  jurisdiction,  a  conviction  by  him 

nounces  the  law  which  defines  and  deter-  is  conclusive  evidence  of  the  facts  stated 

mines  their  rights  in  that  particular  case":  in  the  conviction."     Richardson,  J.:  "I 

Van  Fleet,  V.  C,  in  Shultz  v.  Sanders,  am  of  the  same  opinion ;  wliether  the  ves- 

38  N.  J.  Eq.  154,  156.    In  Brittain  v.  Kin-  sel  in  question  were  a  boat  or  no,  was  a 

naird,  1  B.  &  B.  432,  cited  by  Cooley  in  fact  upon  which  the  magistrate  was  to 

his  work  on  Constitutional  Limitations,  decide,  and  the  fallacy  lies  in  assuming 

the   question    of  jurisdiction    depending  that  the  fact  which   the  magistrate   has 

upon  the  existence  of  a  fact  was  discussed  to  decide  is  that  which  constitutes  his 

and  thus  stated  by  Dallas,  C.  J.:  "The  jurisdiction."  (p.  442.) 
general  principle  applicable  to  cases  of  '^  Shultz  v.  Sanders,  supra,  citing  Rorer 

this  description  is  perfectly  clear ;  it  is  on  Jud.    Sales,  §  431.     "  So  great  is  the 

established  by  all  the  ancient,  and  recog-  faith   reposed  in  judicial  records,"    adds 

nized  by  all  the  modern  decisions;  and  the  Vice-Ciiancellor  (p.  157),  "  that  it  has 

the  principle  is,  that  a  conviction  by  a  been  held  that  a  ?)ona/zV/e  purchaser  at  a 

magistrate  who  has  jurisdiction  over  the  judicial  sale  is  entitled  to  hold  the  land 

subject   matter  is,  if  no  defects    appear  he  has  purchased  and  paid  for,  though  the 

upon  the  face  of  it,  conclusive  evidence  defendant  had,  before  the  sale,  paid  the 

of  the  facts  stated  in  it.  .  .  .  The  magis-  debt  on  winch  the  judgment  was  founded, 

trate,  it  is  urged,  could  not  give  himself  but  left  the  judgment  to  stand  open  and 

jurisdiction  by  finding  that  to  be  a  fact  un.satisfied  on  tlie  records,"  citing  Nich- 

which  was  not  a  fact.     But  he  is  bound  ols  v.  Disner,  29  N.  J.  L.  293 ;  s.  c.  31 

to  inquire  as  to  the  fact ;  and,  when  he  N.  J.  L.  461. 


458  PRELIMINARIES   TO   GRANT   OF   LETTERS.  §  211 

every  person  obeying  it."  ^  In  accordance  with  this  principle,  he 
decided  the  probate  of  a  will,  which  was  subsequently  found  to 
have  been  a  forgery,  to  be  valid,  and  to  protect  the  executor  and 
all  with  whom  he  dealt  until  the  revocation  of  the  probate.^ 

It  may  be  a  hardship  for  a  man  who  returns  to  his  home  after  a 
long  absence  to  find  that  meanwhile  his  property  has  been  sold  or 
used  to  pay  his  debts,  or  that  it  has  been  distributed  to  his  widow 
or  next  of  kin.  Fortunately,  the  cases  of  such  Enoch  Ardens  are 
rare ;  but  when  they  happen,  it  seems  neither  right,  nor  logical, 
nor  politic,  that  the  law  should  shift  their  misfortune  upon  other 
parties,  at  least  fully  as  innocent  as  they.  Not  right,  because  the 
party  absenting  himself  is  the  victim  of  his  own  imprudence,  or 
of  a  concatenation  of  circumstances  in  which  he  is  the  actor  or 
sufferer,  and  should  bear  the  consequences,  because  blame,  if  any, 
can  attach  to  no  one  but  him ;  while  the  judge  who  passes  upon 
the  evidence  submitted  to  him,  the  administrator  who  winds  up 
the  estate,  the  debtor  who  pays  in  obedience  to  the  mandate  of  the 
law,  act,  not  voluntarily,  but  upon  compulsion  of  the  sovereign 
authority  of  the  State.  To  hold  them  responsible  for  an  errone- 
ous adjudication  of  the  court  which  the  law  itself  requires,  (for 
we  have  seen  that  the  probate  judge,  not  being  omniscient,  cannot 
always  avoid  error,)  is  to  convert  the  element  of  misfortune  into 
that  of  arbitrary  oppression  and  injustice.  Not  logical,  because 
such  doctrine  punishes  one  man  for  the  imprudence  or  misfor- 
tunes of  another,  and  posits  the  absurdity  that  the  law  resents 
obedience  to  the  law.    Nor  politic,  because  unjust,  and  injustice  is 

1  Ante,  §  209,  p.  449,  note  5.  will ;    it  is  not   the   act  of  the   deceased 

2  Allen  V.  Dundas,  3  T.  R.  125.  It  person.  The  subject  matter  of  juristlic- 
might  be  interesting  to  learn  the  exact  tion,  then,  does  not  exist,  as  is  afterward 
difference  between  a  forged  will  (which  clearly  shown.  Upon  what  principle,  dis- 
is  therefore  not  a  will)  and  the  estate  of  a  tinguishing  this  case  from  the  other,  can 
person  falsely  represented  as  dead,  con-  jurisdiction  be  ascribed  to  the  ecclesiasti- 
sidered  as  facts  bearing  upon  the  question  cal  court "?  The  cases  holding  that,  where 
of  jurisdiction.  A  person  living  is  clearly  even  an  inferior  tribunal  is  required  to 
not  a  deceased  person,  and  the  argument  ascertain  and  decide  upon  facts  essential 
is  that  no  jurisdiction  vests  in  the  ecclesi-  to  its  jurisdiction,  its  judgment  thereon 
astical  court  to  determine  or  adjudicate  cannot  be  collaterally  attacked,  are  very 
on  the  question  of  death,  because  after-  general ;  those  making  a  distinction  be- 
ward  it  is  found  that  the  subject  matter  tween  inferior  and  plenary  courts  in  this 
of  jurisdiction  does  not  exist,  because  respect  are  in  most  States  overruled  or 
the  person  is  not  dead.  The  subject  superseded  by  statutory  enactments.  See 
matter  of  the  jurisdiction  to  grant  probate  ante,  on  the  subject  of  jurisdiction  of 
is  the  existence  of  a  will,  —  the  act  of  a  probate  courts. 

deceased  person :   the  forgery  is  not  a 


§  212  ESTATES    OF    ABSENT   PERSONS.  459 

never  wise  ;  the  consciousness  that  the  law  itself  imposes  a  wrong 
strilvcs  at  the  foundation  upon  which  alone  civil  society  and  the 
State  itself  can  stand,  —  the  confidence  of  the  people  in  the  justice 
of  the  law.^ 

§  212.  Administration  of  Estates  of  absent  Persons.  —  Adminis- 
tration of  property  becomes  necessary,  as  we  have  seen,  when  its 
owner  is,  for  any  reason,  incapable  of  exercising  control  over  the 
same,  —  oi  assGvtmg;  his  jus  disponendum.^  The  practical  reason 
which  demands  the  interposition  of  the  State  is  fully  as  strong 
when  the  owner  of  personal  property  —  or  of  real  property  liable 
for  his  debts,  or  for  the  support  of  his  family  —  has  voluntarily  or 
by  compulsion  absented  himself,  so  that  it  is  beyond  his  power  to 
provide  for  his  family  or  satisfy  his  creditors,  as  if  he  were  dead, 
insane,  or  a  minor.  It  is  the  office  of  the  State,  in  such  cases,  to 
assume  that  control  over  the  property  left  by  the  owner  which  he, 
if  he  could  himself  act,  and  would  act  rationally,  would  exercise, — 
to  cause  such  property  to  subserve  its  rational  purpose.  At  com- 
mon law  the  accomplislnnent  of  this  function  is  brought  about  by 
the  arbitrary  presumption  of  a  person's  death  after  an  unexplained 
absence  from  home  of  seven  years,  and  subjecting  his  property  to 
administration  as  if  he  were  dead.  That  this  expedient  is  but  an 
unsatisfactory  make-shift,  giving  rise  to  serious  complications,  and 
leading  to  the  anomalous  doctrine  whereby  the  law  is  made  to 
disown  the  logical  result  of  its  existence,  thus  destroying  its  own 
essence,  is  abundantly  apparent  from  the  discussion  of  the  subject 
of  administration  on  the  estates  of  living  persons.^  It  raises  a 
presumption  upon  which  it  compels  men  to  act,  and  then,  accord- 
ing to  the  decisions  of  nearly  all  the  courts  that  have  ruled  on 
the  subject,  disowns  the  necessary  result  of  the  presumption,  and 
treacherously  deserts,  in  many  cases  vindictively  punishes,  those 

1  See  tlie  argument  of  Justices  Earl  and  ence  between    this   logical  consequence 

Miller  in  the  Roderigas  case,  pp.  462,  470.  of  the   doctrine,  and    one   which    would 

The  liahlHty  of  a  probate  judge  to  refund  hold    guilty  of  murder    the    judge   pro- 

to  a  returning  absentee,  whom,  according  nouncing   the    sentence    of    death    upon 

to  the  testimony  of  witnesses  and  the  pre-  a  felon  convicted  of  a  capital  crime,  the 

sumption  raised  by  the  law,  he  had  been  jury   who  found  the   verdict,  —  ay,  the 

compelled   to   adjudge   to   be   dead,  the  carpenter   who   built   the    scaffold   upon 

value   of  all  property  used  in  the  pay-  which   he  was  executed,  —  if   it   should 

ment  of  his  debts,  or  distributed  to  his  subsequently  turn  out  that  no  crime  had 

wife,  children,  or   next    of   kin,  is  logi-  been  committed 7 

cally  involved  in  conditioning  the  juris-  '^  Ante,  §  2 

diction    upon    the   existence,    instead    of  ^  Supra,  §§  208  et  seq. 
proof,  of  a  fact.    How  great  is  the  differ- 


460  PRELIMINARIES   TO   GRANT   OF   LETTERS.  §  212 

who  confided  in  its  validity.^  In  recognition  of  the  insufficiency 
of  the  common  law  on  this  subject,  the  legislatures  of  several  of 
the  States  have  given  voice  to  the  practical  views  of  the  people,  and 
rescued  the  law  from  humiliating  inconsistency  and  impotence  to 
enforce  its  ordinances  by  statutory  regulations. 

Thus  it  is  enacted  in  Missouri,  that  if  administration  be  granted 
on  the  estate  of  a  person  against  whom  the  presumption  of  death 
Statutes  TO-  ^^^^  arisen  after  an  unexplained  absence  of  seven  con- 
vidingforihe  sccutivc  ycars,  the  payment  of  money  and  delivery  of 
of  absent  property   to   the   executor   or   administrator   by  any 

debtor  or  bailee  of  such  person  shall  be  a  bar  to  the 
claims  of  such  person,  his  heirs  or  assigns,  against  the  person  so 
paying  or  delivering  property ;  and  if  such  absentee  do  not  ap- 
pear before  the  court  by  which  letters  were  granted  before  the 
final  disposition  of  his  estate,  obedience  to  the  orders  of  such  court 
for  the  distribution  or  disposition  thereof  shall  protect  the  execu- 
tor or  administrator  from  all  claims  of  such  absent  person.^ 

A  similar  statute  exists  in  Indiana,  declaring  the  presumption 
of  death,  after  an  absence  of  five  years  in  "  parts  unknown,"  of  a 
person  leaving  property  without  sufficient  provision  for  its  man- 
agement, and  conferring  jurisdiction  upon  the  court  of  probate  to 
grant  administration  and  dispose  of  the  estate  of  such  person,  in 
every  respect,  as  if  he  were  dead,  if,  upon  complaint  and  proof, 
after  thirty  days'  notice  by  publication  in  a  newspaper  puljlished 
at  the  capital  of  the  State  and  also  in  one  published  in  such 
county,  it  appear  that  such  property  is  suffering  waste  for  want  of 
care,  or  that  the  family  need  it  for  their  support  and  education,  or 
that  it  is  needed  for  the  payment  of  debts.^ 

^  Judge  Wardlaw  (and  after  him  sev-  planation  would  be  greatly  enhanced  by 

era!  of  the  courts  holding  with  him)  thus  an  intimation  how  a  purchaser,  a  debtor, 

explains  where  the  mistake  lies  in  such  an  administrator,  or  even  a  probate  judge, 

cases:  "  The  defendant  insists  that  upon  called  on  to  act  "  within  his  sphere,"  can 

the  presumption  sanctioned  by  law,  and  avoid    "  the   unlucky    predicament "    of 

the  honest  beUef  thereby  induced,  judicial  supposing  the  decision  of  a  court,  which 

action  was  had,  and  in  faith  of  that  his  the  law  compels  such  court  to  make,  to  be 

purchase  was  made.     The  unlucky  pre-  judicial  action. 

dicament  of  the  purchaser  is  the  same  ^  Rev.  St.  Mo.  1879,  §§  279.  280.     The 

that  every  one  falls  into  who  relies  upon  act  was  originally  passed  on  March  14, 

the  action  of  a  public  functionary  in  a  1859;  Laws,  1858-59,  p.  42. 
matter  not  within  his  sphere.     The  mis-  ^  Rgv.  St.  1881,  §§  22.32,  22.33.     The 

take  has  been  in  supposing  that  there  was  act  originated,   March   5,  1859,  with  an 

any  judicial  action  "  •  Moore  f.  Smith,  11  emergency  clause,  —  the  presumption  of 

Rich.  L.  569,  575.    The  value  of  his  ex-  death  declared  therein  after  an  absence 


§  212  ESTATES    OF   ABSENT    PERSONS.  461 

In  Louisiana,  if  the  owner  of  property  absent  himself  without 
appointing  some  one  to  take  care  of  it,  a  curator  is  appointed  to 
administer  it,  who  lias  the  same  powers,  duties,  and  annual  com- 
pensation as  a  tutor,  makes  annual  settlements,  and  has  them 
homologated  contradictorally  with  a  curator  ad  hoc  appointed  for 
that  purpose  ;  and  if  such  person  has  not  been  lieard  of  for  ten 
years,  his  administration  ends,  the  property  is  delivered  to  the 
heirs,  or  sold  and  the  proceeds  paid  into  the  State  treasury  if 
there  are  no  heirs,^ 

In  Rhode  Island,  the  last  will  of  a  person  absent  from  the  State 
for  three  years  without  proof  of  his  being  alive  may  be  proved, 
and  administration  granted  on  his  estate  "as  if  he  were  dead." 
If  such  person  afterward  return,  or  appoint  an  agent  or  attorney 
to  act  for  him,  the  administrator  must  deliver  up  to  him  or  such 
agent  all  the  estate  then  remaining  in  his  hands,  after  deducting 
all  disbursements  legally  made,  and  such  compensation  for  his 
trouble  as  the  probate  court  may  deem  reasonable.^  Tiiis  statute 
is  said,  by  Choate,  J.,  to  be  unconstitutional,  for  the  same  reason 
on  which  he  based  the  unconstitutionality  of  the  New  York  stat- 
ute authorizing  the  decision  in  Roderigas  v.  East  River  Savings 
Institution.^  "The  Rhode  Island  statute  undertakes  to  do  di- 
rectly what  the  New  York  statute  aims  to  accomplish  by  the 
more  indirect  method  of  declaring  a  judicial  decision  conclusive 
against  a  person  not  a  party  to  it.  In  Rhode  Island  the  court 
does  not  go  through  the  form  of  deciding  that  the  person  is 
dead,  but,  conceding  that  he  is  only  absent,  distributes  his  estate 
'  as  if  he  were  dead,'  without  the  service  of  any  notice  upon  him 
whatever."  * 

In  Massachusetts,  as  has  already  been  mentioned,  the  same  sub- 
stantial result  is  reached  by  subjecting  the  question  of  the  relative 
rights  of  the  parties  affected  by  the  administration  upon  the  estate 
of  one  supposed  to  be  dead,  but  afterward  appearing  in  person,  to 
the  jurisdiction  of  a  court  of  equity,  with  power  to  validate  or 
avoid  any  of  the  acts  done.^ 

of  ten  years:  Laws,  1859,  p.  33.     The  ^  See  (J«?e,  §  210. 

ten  years  was  reduced  to  five,  March  9,  *  Lavin  v.  Tlie   Emigrant  Industrial 

1861,  by  an  act  also  containing  the  emer-  Savings  Bank,  18  Blatchf.   1,  37.    The 

gency  clause  :  Laws,  1861,  p.  116.  decision  of  the  case  was  put  upon  another 

1  Burns  v.  Van  Loan,  29  La.  An.  560,  ground,  however. 

561.  ^  Ante,  p.  451,  note  2. 

2  Pub.  St.  1882,  p.  476,  §§  8,  9. 


462  PRELIMINARIES   TO   GRANT   OF    LETTERS.  §  213 

Pennsylvania,  also,  has  enacted  an  efficient  and  simple  remedy 
for  the  administration  of  estates  of  absentees,  amply  securing  the 
interests  of  such  absentee  if  he  should  subsequently  return,  and 
enabling  payment  of  creditors,  and  distribution  to  wife,  children, 
or  next  of  kin,  upon  just  and  reasonable  conditions. ^ 

In  Texas,  on  the  other  hand,  it  is  provided  by  statute  that  a  will 

probated  before  the  death  of  the  testator  and  administration  on 

the  estate  of  a  living  person  are  void,  except  as  to  the 

Statutes  allow-        .,      .    .  .  ,         '^  „^     _      ^-,  ',  ^  ,  ^ 

ingsuchad-  administration  bond.''  In  Vermont  there  may  be  ad- 
and  declaring  ministration  on  the  estate  of  one  who  has  been  absent 
^^  ^°'  ■  and  unheard  from  for  fifteen  years ;  but  if  such  ab- 

sentee return,  he  is  nevertheless  entitled  to  all  his  property,  and 
may  recover  it  from  any  one  having  possession  of  it.^  In  Arkan- 
sas presumption  of  death  arises  after  five  years'  unexplained  ab- 
sence ;  ^  but  any  property  administered  on  in  consequence  of  such 
presumption  may  be  recovered  by  such  person  on  his  subsequent 
return,  together  with  rents,  profits,  and  interest.^  So,  substan- 
tially, in  New  Jersey.^ 

§  213.  Administration  on  the  Estates  of  Persons  civilly  Dead. — 
Civil  death,  which  in  England  followed  attainder  of  treason  or 
felony,  and  was  anciently  the  consequence  of  entering  a  monas- 
tery, abjuring  the  realm,  and  banishment,  was  there  attended  by 
the  same. legal  consequences  as  death  of  the  body.  Hence  a  monk 
might,  on  entering  religion,  make  his  testament,  and  appoint  exec- 
utors, and  the  ordinary  might  grant  administration,  as  in  case  of 
other  persons  dying ;  and  such  executors  and  administrators  had 
the  same  powers  as  if  he  were  naturally  dead.^  Thus  in  Kansas,^ 
Maine,^  and  Missouri,!^  the  estates  of  convicts  under  sentence  of 
imprisonment  for  life  are  to  be  administered  as  if  they  were 
naturally  dead;  and  in  New  York  the  statute  provides  that  a 
person  sentenced  to  imprisonment  for  life  shall  be  deemed  civilly 
dead,  but  this  is  held  not  to  be  a  divestiture  of  a  convict's  estate.^^ 

But  in  most  of  the  American  States  the  condition  of  civil  death 
is  not  recognized  ;  ^  the  constitutions  of  the  several  States,  as  well 

1  Brightly's  Purd.  Dig.,  Supplement,  ^  1  Bla.  Comm.  132. 

1885,  p.  2184.  8  Dassler's  St.  1885,  ch.  82,  §  337. 

'^  Rev.  L.  1888,  art.  1791.  ^  Rev.  St.  188.3,  ch.  64,  §  18. 

8  Rev.  L.  1880,  §  2077.  ^  Rev.  St.  1879,  §  654.3. 

4  Dig.  1884,  §  28.50.  "  Avery  v.  Everett,  110  N.  Y.  317. 

6  Dig.  1884,  §  217.  ^^  Chancellor    Kent    apprehended,    in 
6  Hoytu.  Newbold,45N.J.L.219,221.     Troup   v.  Wood,   4   John.   Ch.  228,  the 


§  213  ESTATES   OF   PERSONS   CIVrLLY   DEAD.  463 

as  the  Federal  Constitution,  abolish  attainder  and  corruption  of 
blood  ;  and  the  property  of  persons  sentenced  to  imprisonment 
for  life  does  not,  generally,  descend  to  the  heirs  or  personal  repre- 
sentatives, like  that  of  deceased  persons.^ 

New  York  statute  to  be  declaratory  of  death  was  never  carried  further  by  the 

the    existing    law,    enacted   for   greater  common  law  than  to  persons  professed, 

caution  ;    but  in  Plainer  v.  Slierwood,  6  abjured,  or  banished  the  realm. 

John.  Ch.  118,  he  says  that  he  was  mis-  ^  Frazer  v.   Fulcher,   17   Ohio,   260; 

taken  in  this  view,  and  that  strict  civil  Cannon  v.  Windsor,  1  Houst.  143. 


464  THE   PROBATE   OF  THE   WILL.  §  214 


CHAPTER    XXIV. 

OP   THE    PROBATE    OF   THE   WILL. 

§  214.    Production   of   the  "Will    for   Probate.  —  In  many   States 

the  judge  of  probate  or  register  of  wills  is,  by  statute,  made  the 

custodian  of  wills  deposited  with  him  to  that  end.     In 

Dutv  to  pro-  ..,.,,  1  ..- 

pound  will  such  States,  it  is  his  duty,  as  soon  as  he  receives  intor- 
or  pro  -ite.  jjjation  of  the  death  of  any  testator  whose  will  he  has 
in  custody,  to  institute  proceedings  for  the  probate  thereof,  and 
to  that  end  compel  the  attendance  of  the  necessary  witnesses  to 
prove  its  execution  and  the  death  of  the  testator.^  If  the  judge 
of  probate  is  not  the  custodian,  or,  being  so,  neglects  to  proceed 
with  the  probate,  it  is  the  duty  of  the  executor  nominated  in  the 
will,  as  well  as  of  any  other  person  who  may  have  it  in  possession, 
to  produce  it  for  probate.     The  time  fixed  by  law  for 

Time  for  the  ^  -..nc  -it^c  j.cij.i. 

propounding  such  productlon  IS  different  m  the  diiterent  States, 
varying  from  the  time  when  the  custodian  shall  learn 
the  testator's  death,^  to  ten  days,^  fifteen  days,*  thirty  days,^  or 
Who  may  de-  three  months,^  after  the  day  on  which  he  died.^  Any 
mand  probate,  pg^gon  interested  in  a  will  may  demand  its  production 
and  probate;®  even  a  slave  was  allowed  a  standing  in  court  to 
compel  probate  of  a  will  bequeathing  him  his  freedom  ;  ^  and  so 

1  A  statute  providing  for  the  ante  mor-  to  compel  such  production  by  citation  to, 
tern  probate  of  wills  was  held  inoperative  or  attachment  against,  and,  if  necessary, 
in  Michigan  :  Lloyd  v.  Wayne  Circuit  imprisonment  of  the  person  having  a 
Judge,  56  Mich.  236,  239,  240.  will  in  custody.     In  New  York  this  power 

2  As  in  Iowa.  was  held  not  to  be  affected  by  the  stat- 

3  In  Colorado.  ute  inhibiting  surrogates  from  exercis- 
*  In  Pennsylvania.  ing  any  power  not  expressly  conferred  : 
6  In  California,  Connecticut,  Illinois,     Brick's  Estate,  15  Abb.  Pr.  12. 

Maine,  Massachusetts,  .Michigan,  Minne-  ^  Finch  v.  Finch,   14  Ga.  362;   Stone 

sota,  Nebraska,  Nevada,  New  Hampshire,  v.  Huxford,  8  Blackf.  452  ;    Stebbins  v. 

Rhode  Island,  Texas,  Vermont,  and  Wis-  Lathrop,  4  Pick.  33  ;  Enloe  v.  Sherrill,  6 

consin.  Ired.  L.  212,  215;   State  v.  Pace,  9  Rich. 

6  In  Maryland.  L.  355;  Ryan  v.  Tex.  &  Pac.  R.  R.  Co.,  64 

T  In  other  States  no  provision  as  to  Tex.  239,  242.     One  not  interested  cannot 

the  time  within  which  the  production  is  bring  in  a  foreign  probate  for  allowance  : 

required  exists  ;  but  in  all  of  them  au-  Besancon  i'.  Brownson,  39  Mich  388,  392. 

thority  is  given  to  the  judge  of  probate  '■'  Ford  v.  Ford,  7  Humph.  92. 


§  214  PRODUCTION    OF   THE    WILL   FOR    PROBATE.  465 

an  executor,  devisee,  or  purchaser  from  a  devisee,  although  the 
estate  has  been  fully  distributed.^ 

In  most  of  the  States,  the  secreting,  withliolding,  or  refusal  to 
produce  a  will  for  probate,  in  the  possession  of  an   executor  or 
other  person,  is  a  violation  of  the  law  subjecting  such  p^j^g^^^^^  f^r 
persons  to  various  penalties ;  thev  are  made  liable,  for  secretiiif^  or 
instance,  for  any  damages  accruing  to  any  person  in-  will  from 
terested  in  the  will  so  withheld,  in  California,^  Indi-  ^"^^  *  ^" 
ana,3  Iowa,*  Kansas,^  Maine,^  Massachusetts,^  Nebraska,^  Nevada,^ 
Ohio,io  and  Wisconsin  ; "  a  fine  is  imposed  in  Maryland ;  ^^  and  an 
action  given  for  the  use  of  the  estate,  or  a  qui  tarn  action  against 
the  person  withholding  the  will,  in  Connecticut,!^  Illinois,^''  Maine,!^ 
Rhode  Island,!^  and  Vermont.^^     In  Mississippi,  such  withholding 
is  punishable  as  grand  larceny.^^     In  Texas,!'-*  the  executor  forfeits 
his  right  of  executorship,  if  he  neglect  for  more  than  thirty  days 
to  present  the  will  for  probate. 

In  respect  of  the  time  within  which  a  will  is   alloived  to  be 
proved,  there  is  also  considerable  divergence  in  the  several  States. 
In  New  Jersey  probate  of  a  will  within  ten  days  of  Limitation  of 
the   testator's  death  is  erroneous,  but  good  until  it  Jvhicirprobate 
be  reversed  in  a  direct  proceeding.^*^     Perkins,  iu  his  ™^-^'  '^*'  '^'^'^• 
American  edition  of  Jarman  on  Wills,^!  mentions  a  Georgia  stat- 
ute requiring  the  registry  within  three   months  after  the  testa- 
tor's death,  otherwise  the  will  to  be  void  ;  but  this  statute  was 
held    inoperative.^     In  Ohio,  a  devise  is  held  to  lapse,  and  the 
estate  devised  to   descend   to  the  heirs  of   the   testator,   if  the 
devisee,  knowing  of  its  existence,  fail  to  offer  the  will,  or  cause 
it  to  be  offered,  for  probate  within  three  years.^'^     In  Connecticut, 

1  Because  a  will  confers  no  legal  title         ^^  Originally  for  £5,  now  for  $20  per 
without  probate:  State  r.  Judge,  17  La.      month:  Barber  v.  Eno,  2  Root,  150. 

An.  189;  Ryan  v.  Tex.  &  Pac.  R.  R.  Co.,  i^  Rev.  St.  1885,  p.  2472,  §  12  ($20  per 

01  Tex.  239.  month). 

2  Code  Ciy.  Pr.'l885,  §  1298.  i5  Moore  v.  Smith,  5  Me.  490. 

3  Rev.  St.  1881,  §  2.582.  i6  p„b.  St.  1882,  p.  473,  §  5  ($100  per 

4  Code,  §  2339.  month). 

6  Dassler's  St.  1885,  ch.  117,  §  10.  i"  Rev.  L.  1880,  §  2052  ($10  per  month). 

6  Rev.  St.  1883,  ch.  64,  §  .3.  is  Code,  1857,  p.  434,  §  47.     See  Code, 

7  Pub.  St.  1882,  cli.  127,  §  13.  1880,  §  2978. 

8  Comp.  St.  1887,  ch.  23,  §  138.  i9  Stone  v.  Brown,  16  Tex.  42-5,  428. 

9  1  Comp.  L.  1873,  §  486.  20  Will  of  Evans,  29  N.  J.  Eq.  571. 
1"  Rev.  St.  1880,  §  5924.  21  Pa<re  218,  note  3. 

11  Rev.  St.  1878,  §  3785.  22  Harrell  v.  Hamiton,  6  Ga.  37. 

12  At  the  discretion  of  the  court :  Code,         2.3  Carpenter  v.  Denoon,  29  Oh.  St.  379, 
1878,  p.  422,  §  17.  392. 

VOL.  I.— 30 


466  THE    mOBATE   OF    THE   WILL.  §  214 

no  will  is  allowed  to  be  proved  after  the  expiration  of  ten  years 
from  the  testator's  death,  except  in  the  interest  of  minors,  who 
have  three  years  after  reaching  majority  within  which  to  obtain 
the  probate.^  In  Maine,^  Oregon,'^  and  Tennessee,'*  no  probate 
is  to  be  granted  after  the  expiration  of  twenty  years  from  the 
testator's  death ;  and  in  Kentucky  the  lapse  of  thirty  years  is 
prima  facie  a  bar  to  the  establishment  of  a  will  in  chancery.^  In 
Indiana,^  a  bona  fide  purchaser  from  the  heirs  of  the  testator  can 
hold  against  his  devisees  if  the  will  is  not  probated  within  three 
years  ;  in  New  York ''  and  Ohio,^  if  not  within  four  years.  In 
Illinois  no  time  has  been  designated  within  which  a  will  may  be 
probated ;  hence  a  Avill  was  admitted  to  probate  thirteen,^  and  in 
Massachusetts  sixty-three,^^  years  after  the  testator's  death.  So  in 
New  Jersey  the  will  of  a  married  woman  was  admitted  to  probate 
ten  years  after  her  death,  her  husband's  consent  thereto  being 
held  irrevocable,  although  the  husband  had  administered  the 
estate  until  his  own  death ;  ^^  and  m  Texas,  although  probate  is 
required  to  be  made  within  four  years,  after  the  expiration  of 
which  no  letters  testamentary  can  be  granted,  a  will  may  be  pro- 
bated thereafter  for  the  purpose  of  establishing  a  link  in  the  chain 
of  title ;  and  where  the  devisee  has  assigned  his  interest  under 
the  will  before  probate,  the  subsequent  probate  gives  vitality  to 
the  conveyance,  except  against  an  innocent  purchaser  from  an 
heir.i2  In  Michigan  a  legatee,  holding  a  will  or  having  knowledge 
of  its  existence,  must  secure  its  probate  within  a  reasonable  time 
after  he  knows  of  the  testator's  death,  or  he  may  bar  himself 
from  claiming  any  benefit  therefrom.^^ 

1  Goodman    v.   Russ,   14    Conn.  210,  6  Rgv.  St.  1881,  §  2575  ;  unless  devisee 

215.  is  under  disability,  or  the  will  has  been 

^  Eev.  St.  ch.  64,  §  1.     But  where  the  concealed, 

will  is  fraudulently  concealed,  the  stat-  '  Unless  the  will  is  concealed  by  the 

ute  does  not  begin   to  run  until  it  has  heirs;  1829,  1  Rev,  St.  748;  3  Jarm.  729, 

been   discovered  •    Deake's    Appeal,    12  note  iii. 

Atl.  R.  (Me.)  790.  ^  If  the  devisee  know  of  its  existence 

3  St.  1855,  p.  342,  §  30.  and  have  the  same  in  bis  power  to  con- 

•   4  Except  to  infants  or  married  women  trol :  Rev.  St.  1880,  §  5943. 

at  the  time  of  the  testator's  death,  as  to  ^  Rebhan  v.  Mueller,  114  111.  343. 

whom  the  limitation  is  thirty  years.    The  i"  Haddock  v.  Boston  &  M.  R.  Co.,  146 

probate  of  a  will  in  the   Probate  Court  Mass.  155. 

more  than  thirty  years  after  the  death  of  "  Camden  Safe  D.  &  T.  Co.  v.  Ingham, 

a  testator  was  held  erroneous,  but  con-  40  N.  J.  Eq.  3. 

elusive,  Shackelford,  J.,  dissenting,  hold-  ^^  Ryan  v.  Texas  &  Pac.  R.  R.  Co.,  64 

ing  it  to  be  void:  Townsend  f.  Townsend,  Tex.  239,  241 ,  Ochoa  v.  Miller,  59  Tex. 

4  Coldw.  70,  79,  86.  460. 

5  Hunt  V.  Hamilton,  9  Dana,  90.  i^  poote  v.  Foote,  61  Mich.  181,  194. 


§  215  VALIDITY    OF    PROBATE   IN    PROBATE    COURTS.  467 

§215.    Validity    of     Probate   in    Probate    Courts. — Previous    to 

the  act  creating  the  Court  of  Probates/  no  will  or  testamentary 
paper  whatever  relating  to  personalty  could  be  estab-  ^^  common 
lished  or  disputed  in  any  other  than  the  ecclesiastical,  {,'^^7^,7^^',^'^^^. 
or  prescriptive  manorial  courts   of   England;    these  ceived  i>nibate 

'  .       .     ,.      .  Ml        £c      ^      in  ecclesiastical 

courts,  however,  had  no  jurisdiction  over  wills  aiiect-  courts  only  ; 

.     .  ■!      •  ■  11  wills  of  rcaltv, 

ing  real  estate,  —  their  sentences  and  decrees  were  in  common  law 
wholly  inoperative  as  to  such.2   Under  the  act  referred  •=<'"''^'  ""'•'• 
to,  jurisdiction  to  take  probate  of   wills,  without  distinguishing 
between  them  on  the  ground  of  their  disposing  of  real  gj^j,,^^^^,  .^,. 
or  personal  property,  is  vested  in  the  Court  of  Probate  risdictioa  now 

'^  1       1         .;  '  _  ,,j  probate 

thereby  created.  The  probate  may  be  in  the  "  com-  courts  as  to 
moil "  or  "  non-contentious "  form,  granted  by  the 
registrar  upon  the  affidavit  of  the  applicant  showing  the  testator's 
domicil  and  death;  or  it  may  be  in  the  "solemn"  or  "conten- 
tious "  form,  upon  citation  to  the  widow  and  next  of  kin,  and  a 
regular  trial  by  the  judge.^  This  power  had  long  before  been 
exercised  by  the  probate  courts  of  nearly  all  the  States  ;  the  dis- 
tinction between  wills  of  realty  and  of  personalty  is  now  practically 
ignored  in  the  proceedings  to  obtain  probate,'^  except,  perhaps,  in 
Maryland,  where  a  will  of  personalty  may  be  admitted  to  probate 
in  the  Orphan's  Court,  and  on  the  testimony  of  one  of  the  attest- 
ing witnesses,  while  a  will  of  real  estate  must  be  proved  by  the 
testimony  of  all  of  them.°  In  some  of  the  States,  however,  there 
is  still  a  distinction  observed  as  to  the  conclusiveness  of  such 
probate.^  But  the  distinction  between  the  several  Different  meth- 
methods  of  probate,  variously  designated  as  the  "com-  "^i^ of  P-o^^ie. 
mon"  contrasted  with  the  "solemn"  form,  the  "non-contentious" 
with  the  "contentious,"  or  the  "  ex  parte"  probate  with  the  pro- 
bate ^^ per  testes"  exists  in  many  of  them,  requiring  different 
forms  of  proceeding  in  bringing  about  the  same  result  secured  by 

1  20  &  21  Vict.  c.  77,  §  13.  8  Wms.  Ex.  [290]. 

-  "  Whenever  a  freehold   is   claimerl,  *  Schoul.   Ex.  §  59,   citine  Shiimway 

the  origin.xl  will  must  be  prorlueed.  ...  r.  Tlolbrook,   1   Pick.  114 ;   Wilkinson  v. 

And  sucli  is  the  jealousy  of  tiie  common  Leland,  2  Pet.  627,655 ;  Bailey  v.  Bailey, 

law  with  regard  to  ecclesiastical  jurisdic-  8  Ohio,  239,  245. 

tion,  that  neither  an  exemplification  un-  ^  Robertson  c.  Pickrell,  109  U.  S.  608, 

der  the  great  seal,  nor  the  probate  under  610. 

the  seal  of  the  ecclesiastical  court  will  ^  See  as  to  effect  of  probate,  infra, 

be    admitted   as    secondary    evidence "  :  §  228. 
Adams  on  Eject.  *290  (4tb  ed.),  citing  Ash 
V.  Calvert,  2  Camp.  387,  389. 


468 


THE    PROIJATE    OF   THE   WILL. 


the  English  statute.  Courts  of  probate  have  orig-inal  exclusive 
jurisdiction  in  all  of  the  States  to  take  probate  of  wills  in  the 
common  form,  where  there  is  no  notice  to  any  of  the  parties,  or, 
if  parties  are  cited  or  notified  by  publication,  they  either  fail  to 
appear,  or,  appearing,  make  no  objection.  In  some  instances 
the  same  class  of  courts  has  also  jurisdiction  to  cite  parties  in 
interest,  either  upon  demand  of  the  executor  or  other  person  pro- 
pounding the  will,  or  upon  objections  being  made  or  caveat  filed, 
and  in  such  case  grant  probate  in  solemn  form,  which  then  is  con- 
clusive. 

Thus  in  California,^  Delaware,^  Florida,^  Georgia,'*  Maryland,^ 
Mississippi,^  Nevada,  Nebraska,  New  Jersey,'  New  Hampshire,^ 
and  South  Carolina,^  the  probate  in  common  form  may  be  con- 


1  Code  Civ.  Pr  §§  1298-1333.  Parties 
having  no  notice  of  the  probate  may 
contest  within  one  year;  and  the  decision 
on  such  contest,  as  well  as  the  original 
probate  if  not  contested  within  one  year, 
is  conclusive.  If  the  heirs  appear,  al- 
though not  properly  served  with  notice, 
they  are  bound  :  Abila  v.  Padilla,  14  Cal. 
103.  Such  decision  is  not  assailable  if 
not  appealed  from  :  State  v.  McGlynn,  20 
Cal.  233;  see  McCrea  v.  Haraszthy,  51 
Cal.  146. 

2  Rev.  Code,  1874,  p.  539 ;  Davis  v. 
Rogers,  1  Houst.  183. 

3  The  will  may  be  proved  on  the  affi- 
davit of  the  executor  or  other  proponent ; 
any  party  interested  may  contest  witliin 
seven  years  :  Meyer  v.  Meyer,  7  Fla.  292. 

*  Probate  by  one  witness  without  no- 
tice to  any  one  is  conclusive,  if  it  re- 
mains unchallenged  for  seven  years 
(except  as  to  minors,  who  may  interpose 
caveat  for  four  years  after  their  major- 
ity) ;  probate  in  solemn  form  by  all  wit- 
nesses, upon  notice  to  all  parties .  Code, 
1882,  §§  242-3-2426.  Notice  to  the  hus- 
band of  one  next  of  kin  is  not  sufficient : 
Stone  V.  Green,  .30  Ga.  340 ;  if  one  of  the 
caveators  die,  his  representative  need  not 
be  made  a  party  :  Stancil  v.  Kenan,  35 
Ga.  102  ;  destruction  of  the  subject  of  a 
legacy  is  no  ground  for  a  caveat:  New- 
som  V.  Tucker,  36  Ga.  71,76. 

^  Upon  caveat  by  any  person  in  inter- 
est, there  must  be  a  trial  ;  issues  are 
made  up  and  sent  by  the  orplian's  court 


to  the  circuit  court,  from  which  appeal 
lies  to  tlie  court  of  appeals  ;  Jameson 
V.  Hall,  37  Md.  221,  230  •  Scliull  v.  Mur- 
ray, 32  Md.  9,  15.  Where  tliere  is  a 
dispute  in  regard  to  the  facts,  it  is  in- 
cumbent on  the  court  to  order  a  plenary 
proceeding.  Mills  v.  Humes,  22  Md.  346, 
351,  citing  numerous  earlier  cases.  The 
probate  of  a  will  of  personalty  by  the 
probate  court  is  conclusive,  of  realty  only 
prima  fade  ;  but  a  rejection  is  conclusive 
in  both  classes  of  wills  :  Johns  v.  Hodges, 
62  Md.  525,  533. 

6  The  issue  of  devisavU  vel  non  is  sent 
for  trial  to  the  circuit  court  and  tlie 
verdict  certified  to  the  probate  court : 
Graves  v.  lid  wards,  32  Miss.  30.5. 

'  Proceedings  in  this  State  are  the 
same  as  in  Maryland  •  on  objections  be- 
fore the  surrogate,  trial  is  had  in  the  or- 
phan's court,  whence  issues  may  be  sent 
to  the  circuit  court ;  a  probate  without 
notire  will  be  set  aside  by  the  ordinsiry  : 
Will  of  Lawrence,  7  N.  J.  Eq  21,5,  221.' 

8  The  probate  in  common  form  may 
be  appealed  from,  or  proof  in  solemn 
form  demanded  witiiin  one  year:  Stew- 
art V.  Harriman,  56  N.  H   25. 

9  Probate  in  common  form,  by  one 
witness,  ex  parte,  is  conclusive,  unless 
probate  in  full  form  be  demanded  within 
four  years  after  removal  of  any  disability, 
whereupon  trial  is  upon  notice  to  all  par- 
ties and  examination  of  all  the  witnesses: 
Kinard  v.  Riddlehoover,  3  Rich.  L  258, 
266. 


§215 


VALIDITY   OF    PROBATE    IN    PROBATE   COURTS. 


469 


tested  within  a  limited  time,  and  probate  in  solemn  form,  with 
notice  to  all  interested  parties,  had  in  the  probate  court. 

In  Alabama,^  Colorado,^  Illinois,^  Indiana,^  Kansas,^  Kentncky,^ 
Missouri,^  New  York,**  North  Carolina,^  Ohio,i*^  Pennsylvania,^^ 
Tenncssce,^^  Texas,^'^  Virginia,^**  and  West  Virg-inia,^^  the  pro- 
bate originally  obtained  ex  parte,  or  in  common  form,  in  the 
probate  court,  may  be  contested  either  in  chancery,  or  by  action 
in  a  court  of  law ;  and  the  proceedings  in  such  court  constitute 


1  Probate  without  notice  to  the  next 
of  kin  or  widow  may  be  set  aside  in  chan- 
cery within  five  years:  Hall  v.  Hall,  47 
Ala.  290 ;  although  it  is  the  duty  of  the 
probate  court  to  set  aside  a  probate 
granted  without  notice  to  the  heirs,  upon 
petition  by  such  heirs  :  Sowell  v.  Sowell, 
40  Ala.  24.S. 

^  Probate  may  be  contested  by  parties 
not  notified  and  not  appearing,  in  chan- 
cery, within  two  years  ;  or  the  probate 
may  be  appealed  from :  Gen.  L.  1883, 
§§  3508,  3510. 

3  Within  three  years,  in  chancery  ;  or 
tliree  years  after  removal  of  disability  ; 
and  parties  may  also  contest  in  the  pro- 
bate court:  Duncan  v.  Duncan,  23  111. 
364,  360  ;  and  appeal  from  it :  Doran  v. 
Mullen,  78  111.  342  ;  Storey's  WiU,  20 
111.  A  pp.  183;  s.  c.  120  111.  244. 

*  By  parties  not  present  or  notified, 
witiiin  three  years,  or  two  years  after  re- 
moval of  disability,  in  the  circuit  court : 
Etter  V.  Armstrong,  46  Ind.  197  ;  Deig  v. 
Morehead,  110  Ind.  451.  There  is  right 
to  trial  by  jury  :  Lamb  v.  Lamb,  105  Ind. 
456. 

»  Within  two  years  after  removal  of 
disability,  by  civil  action. 

•^  Within  five  years  in  circuit  court; 
or  by  persons  not  present  or  notified  in 
chancery  within  three  years,  on  the  gen- 
eral doctrine  that  a  person  bound  by  a 
judgment  who  was  not  present  or  notified 
may  have  the  judgment  reviewed  :  Sin- 
gleton V.  Singleton,  8  B.  Mon.  340,  358 
et  seq.,  reviewing  numerous  earlier  cases  ; 
or  by  writ  of  error  in  circuit  court :  Tib- 
bats  0.  Berry,  10  B.  Mon.  473,  476  ;  or 
appeal :  Walters  v.  Ratliff,  5  Bush,  575, 
citing  Hughey  v.  Sidwell,  18  B.  Mon.  259. 

"  Probate  or  rejection  ex  parte  by  the 
probate  court  is  binding,  and  there  is  no 
appeal ;   but  any  person  interested  may 


within  five  years  institute  proceedings  in 
the  circuit  court  for  the  trial  of  an  issue 
of  devisavit  vel  non  :  Kenrick  v.  Cole,  46 
Mo.  85  ;  Duty's  Estate,  27  Mo.  43. 

^  Probate  by  the  surrogate  is  conclu- 
sive as  to  personalty,  prima  fucie  as  to 
realty  ;  he  cannot  grant  probate  in  solemn 
form  :  Wetmore  v.  Parker,  52  N.  Y.  450, 
456  ;  Burger  v.  Hill,  1  Bradf.  360,  371. 

'J  Upon  caveat,  at  any  time,  proceed- 
ings will  be  removed  into  the  superior 
court. 

1*  Contest  may  be  made  in  the  circuit 
cotirt  within  two  years  :  Hathavvay's  Will, 
4  Oh.  St.  383.  See  McArthur  v.  Scott,  113 
U.  S.  340,  385  et  seq  ,  reviewing  the  Ohio 
cases,  and  holding  that,  on  a  contest  in 
chan(;ery,  the  decree  only  affects  parties 
to  the  suit,  being  void  as  to  all  others. 

11  Upon  caveat,  issues  must  be  tried 
in  the  orphan's  court  or  common  pleas 
court  ;  probate  is  conclusive  as  to  per- 
sonalty, but  may  be  contested  as  to  real 
estate  by  caveat  and  action  at  law  ;  if 
not  contested  within  five  years,  it  is  con- 
clusive also  :  Wikoff' s  Appeal,  15  Pa. 
St.  281 ;  Cauffmann  v.  Long,  82  Pa.  St. 
72  ;  Broe  v.  Boyle,  108  Pa.  St.  76,  82. 

^'^  Proof  by  one  witness  ;  but  on  con- 
test at  any  time  within  eighteen  years, 
there  must  be  full  trial  in  the  circuit 
court :  Gibson  v.  Lane,  9  Yerg.  475 ;  Ed- 
mondson  v.  Carroll,  2  Sneed,  678;  Miller 
V.  Miller,  5  Heisk.  723. 

1^  Tiie  probate  may  be  contested  with'n 
four  years  after  removal  of  disability  or 
discovery  of  fraud  in  the  circuit  court. 

1^  Probate  is  conclusive  upon  all  parties 
notified  or  appearing ;  but  if  not,  they 
may  impeach  the  probate  in  equity  within 
five  years  :  Spencer  v.  Moore,  4  Call,  423. 

i**  Appeal  is  given  within  one  year  to 
circuit  court,  and  review  in  chancery 
within  three  years. 


470  THE    PROBATE   OF    THE    WILL.  §  216 

the  probate  in  solemn  or  full  form,  or,  as  is  sometimes  snid,  per 
testes. 

In  the  States  of  Arkansas,^  lowa,^  Maine,  Massachusetts,  Mich- 
igan, Minnesota,  Oregon,  Rhode  Island,  Vermont,  and  Wisconsin, 
the  probate  obtained  in  the  probate  court  seems  to  have  all  the 
force  and  validity  of  a  probate  in  solemn  form,  and  is  conclusive, 
both  as  to  real  and  personal  estate,  if  not  appealed  from  or  an- 
nulled in  equity  for  fraud,  or  some  cause  which  gives  equity  courts 
jurisdiction  over  judgments  at  law.^ 

In  Louisiana  the  will  must  be  proved  before  the  parish  or  dis- 
trict judge  ;  ■*  a  foreign  will  may  be  registered,  or  proved  before 
the  court  in  which  it  is  offered  as  evidence.^ 

The  probate  of  wills  lost,  suppressed,  or  destroyed,^  is  ordinarily 
within  the  jurisdiction  of  probate  courts,  as  coming  within  the 
scope  of  their  general  jurisdiction^  But  in  most  of  the  United 
States  chancery  courts  exercise  the  power  to  establish  wills  on  the 
ground  that  they  have  been  lost,  suppressed,  or  destroyed,  and  the 
jurisdiction  in  such  cases  seems  to  be  concurrent,^  unless  the  stat- 
ute restrict  the  jurisdiction  of  the  one  or  other  of  these  courts. 
Thus,  it  is  held  in  Tennessee,  that  where  a  will  has  been  lost,  or 
destroyed,  or  suppressed,  by  accident  or  fraud,  it  can  only  be  set 
up  in  a  court  of  chancery  ;  ^  in  Ohio,  that  the  jurisdiction  is 
confined  to  a  court  of  probate  ;^'^  and  the  Supreme  Court  of  the 
United  States  expressed  grave  doubt  whether  such  is  the  law  of 
Louisiana.^^ 

§  216.    Method  of  Proof  in   Common  Form.  —  The  probate  of  a 

will  in  common  form  is  in  its  nature  ex  parte,  without  notice  to 

any  one  interested  in  or  against  it,  and  resting,  in 

non-contentious  somc  States,  upou  the  evidence  or  affidavit  of  a  single 

*""°  ^  ^'  witness,  which  in  some  instances  may  be  the  executor 

1  Dowell  v.  Tucker,  46  Ark.  438,  449.  ^  Code,  1681,  1682. 

2  Proceedings  in  Iowa  are  in  tlie  cir-  ^  As  to  wliicii  see  post,  §  221. 

cuit   court:    Code,   §  2312  ;    Murphy    v.  ''  Dower  v.  Seeds,  28  W.  Va.  113,  152, 

Black,  41  Iowa,  488  ;  Gilruth  v.  Gilruth,  and  numerous  cases  cited. 

40  Iowa,  346  ;  a  proceeding  to  probate  is  ^  Dower  v.   Seeds,   supra  ;    Harris   v. 

not  reviewable  de  novo  on  appeal :   Don-  Tisereau,  52  Ga.  153. 

nely's  Will,  68  Iowa,  126.  ®  Buchanan  ?;.  Matlock,  8  Humph.  390, 

3  Scboui.  Ex.  §  70,  citing  Smith  Prob.  400. 

Pr.  46 ;  O'Dell  v.  Rogers,  44  Wis.  136 ;  ^^  Morningstar  v.  Selby,  15  Ohio,  345, 

Parker  v.  Parker,  11  Cush.  519.  362. 

4  Code,  1637  ;  Succession  of  Eubanks,  ^^  Gaines  v.  Chew,  2  How.  (U.  S.)  619, 
9  La.  An.  147;  Hollingshead  c.  Sturges,  647. 

16  La.  An.  334. 


J  216  METHOD   OF   PROOF   iN   COMMON   FOEM.  47l 

or  proponent  himself.  It  ''  applies  only  for  convenience,  expe- 
dition, and  the  saving  of  expense,  where  there  is  apparently  no 
question  among  the  parties  interested  in  the  estate  that  the 
paper  propounded  is  the  genuine  last  will,  and  as  such  entitled 
to  probate.  For  contentious  business  before  the  court,  probate 
in  common  form  would  be  quite  unsuitable."  ^  According  to  the 
English  ecclesiastical  practice,  in  which  this  form  of  probate  ori- 
ginated, a  will  is  proved  when  the  executor  presents  it  before  the 
judge  and  produces  more  or  less  proof  that  the  testament  pre- 
sented is  the  true,  whole,  and  last  testament  of  the  deceased, 
■wiiereupon  the  judge  passes  the  instrument  to  probate,  and  issues 
letters  testamentary  under  the  official  seal.^  Under  Effect  ..f  pio- 
the  Court  of  Probate  Act  the  executor  may  at  his  i>atei,..„n„non 

.'  iuul  111  solemn 

pleasure  prove  the  will  in  common  or  in  solemn  form,  fo''»- 
the  diflerence  in  effect  being  that  the  probate  in  conniion  form 
may  be  impeached  at  any  time  within  thirty  years  by  a  person 
having  an  interest,  whereupon  the  executor  will  be  compelled  to 
prove  it  per  testes  in  solemn  form  ;  ^  whereas,  if  once  proved  in 
solemn  form  of  law,  the  executor  is  not  to  be  compelled  to  prove 
the  same  any  more,  and  the  instrument  remains  in  force,  although 
all  the  witnesses  be  dead.* 

According  to  the  practice  in  American  probate  courts,  a  similar 
course  is  pursued  in  most  of  the  States ;  usually,  the  executor 
(but  it  may  be  any  other  person  having  an  interest)  proof  ir 
presents  the  will,  and  sets  forth  in  a  petition  Cwhich  '"°'?  ^"'i"' 

*•  ,  r  V  under  Ai. 

may  be  a  printed  blank  provided  for  such  purpose)  the  can  statutes. 
facts  of  the  death  of  the  testator,  his  last  domicil,  the  names  and 
places  of  residence  of  the  surviving  widow  or  husband,  if  there  be 
such,  and  of  the  next  of  kin  ;  and,  alleging  that  the  paper  or  papers 
presented  constitute  the  last  will  of  the  deceased,  prays  for  the 
probate  thereof  and  for  appointment  of  executor  or  administrator, 
as  the  case  may  be.^     It  is  held  in  some  of  the  States,  as  has 

1  Schoul.  Ex.  §  G6.  But  in  some  States,  tion  of  the  executor  by  the  next  of  kin 
for  instance  in  Missouri,  tliere  can  be  no  to  prove  it  i>er  testes  in  due  form  of  law, 
contentious  proceeding  until  the  will  has  revoked  in  1818:  Wms.,  citing  Satter- 
been  either  admitted  or  rejected  by  the  thwaite  r.  Sattertliwaite,  oPhillim.  1  ;  aiul 
probate  court,  which  can  only  be  in  the  one  granted  in  1807  was  revoked  in  1820: 
common  form  :  Rev.  St.  §§  3972,  3980.  Finucane  ;•   Gayfere,  3  Phillim.  405. 

2  Schoul.  Ex.  §  6G,  citing  Swinb.,  pt.  6,  *  Wms.  Ex.  [334],  citing  Swinb.,  pt.  6, 
§  14,  pi.  1 ;  Wms.  Ex.  [325|.  §  14,  pi.  4. 

3  So  tiie  probate  of  a  codicil,  granted  "  Schoul.  Ex.  §  65.  It  is  not  essential 
in  common  form  in  1808,  was  upon  cita-  that  the  petiiiou  allege  the  testamentary 


in  com- 
orm 
Lnieri- 


472  THE   PROBATE    OF   THE   WILL.  §  217 

already  been  mentioned,  that  proof  may  be  made  by  a  single  sub- 
scribing witness ;  ^  but  in  most  of  them  the  testimony  of  both  or 
all  subscribing  witnesses  is  required,  if  they  are  living  and  within 
What  facts  the  reach  of  the  process  of  the  court.^  Whether  the 
must  be  proved  ^[\\  y^Q  pj-Qved  hv  the  testimony  of  one  or  all  of  the 

to  obtain  pro-  i  j  ^ 

bate.  witnesses,  or  by  the  affidavit  of  the  executor,  or  by 

other  witnesses,  the  facts  necessary  to  be  proved  are  in  all  instan- 
ces the  same :  that  the  testator  was  of  sound  mind,  and  that  he 
and  the  subscribing  witnesses  complied  with  all  the  requirements 
of  the  statute  respecting  the  execution  and  attestation  by  the 
requisite  number  of  witnesses.^  The  essential  qualities  of  a  will 
have  been  considered  in  a  former  chapter  of  this  work,  to  which 
reference  is  hereby  made.* 

§  217.  The  Probate  in  Solemn  Form.  — The  English  distinction 
between  the  common  or  ex  parte  probate  and  the  probate  in 
solemn  form,  or  per  testes,  has  already  been  mentioned.^  In  some 
Proof  in  solemn  of  the  American  States,^  the  only  method  of  probate 
uXe'3'tHai  provided  for  is  the  original  proceeding  in  the  probate 
of  an  issue  of      court,  wliich,  as  it  requires  citation  or  notice  to  all  the 

devisnvit  vet  '  '  ^  i  •    i       p    ,1       •  £ 

non.  parties  interested  and  a  regular  trial  of  the  issue  ot 

devisavit  vel  non,  with  trial  by  jury  under  the  direction  of  a  judge, 
is  substantially  a  proceeding  in  solemn  form.'^  In  others,  how- 
ever, the  proceeding  in  solemn  form  is  materially  different  from 

capacity    of   tlie    testator:    Hathaway's  2  R.  I.  88,  90;  Clarke  v.  Dunnavant,  10 

Appeal,  4G  Mich.  826,  328.  Leigh,  13,  23 ;  Staring  v  Bowen,  0  Barb. 

1  Schoul.  Ex.  §  70 ;  lb.  §  68 ;  so  pro-  109,  113.     But  it  is  not  essential  tiiat  the 

vided    by    statute    in    California :    Code  subscribing   witnesses  shall  each  testify 

Civ.  Pr.  §1308  ;  Massachusetts:  Pub.  St.  to  all  of  the   essential   facts:  Tilden  v. 

754,  §  1 ;"  Michigan  :  Howell's  St.  §  5802  ;  Tilden,    13    Gray,    110  ;     Weir    v.    Fitz- 

Nevada :  Comp.  L.  1873,  §  498;  and  held  gerald,  2   Bradf.  42.     See  post,  §  218,  on 

in  Iowa  :  Barney  v.  Chittenden,  2  Green  the  effect  of  want  of  memory  of  subscrib- 

(Inwa),  165, 176  ;  and  Tennessee  :  Rogers  ing  witnesses. 

■y.  Winton,  2  Humph.  178;  but  in  a  later  ^  Moore   v.    Steele,   10   Humph.   562; 

case  it  was  held  that  there  must  be  two  Johnson    ;;.    Dunn,   6   Gratt.   625.      The 

witnesses  to  prove  a  will  of  personalty  in  handwriting  of  a  testator  who  signed  by 

Tennessee,   who  need  not,   however,  be  making  a  mark  cannot  be  proved  :  Walsh's 

subscribing  witnesses:   Johnson   i-.   Fry,  Will,  1  Tuck.  132;  Matter  of  Reynolds, 

1  Coldw.  101.     The  statutes  of  Florida,  4   Dem.   68;    and   where   the    witnesses 

Georgia  (Brown  v.  Anderson,  13  Ga  171 ),  seemed  to  remember  tlie  circumstances 

South    Carolina,   and   Tennessee    (Code,  with  essential  accuracy,  the  want  of  tes- 

1884,  §  3012)  contain  similar  provisions.  tamentary   declaration    was    held   fatal  : 

'■2  Doran  v.  Mullen,  78  111.  342,  344 ;  Wilson  v.  Hetterick,  2  Bradf.  427. 

Lindsay  v.  McCormack,  2  A.  K.  Marsh.  *  Ante,  §  36  et  seq. 

229  ;  Martin  v.  Perkins,  56  Miss.  204,  209  ;  5  Ante,  §  215. 

Butler  V.  Benson,  1  Barb.  526,  5-33 ;  Arm-  ^  Ante,  §  21.5. 

strong  V.  Baker,  9  Ired.  109;  Fry's  Will,  ^  Schoul.  Ex.  §  70. 


§  217  THE  PROBATE  IN  SOLEMN  FORM.  473 

that  primarily  resorted  to  in  the  probate  court,  and  may  in  some 
instances  be  had  in  the  probate  court  also,  but  must  in  others  be 
pursued  in  common  law  or  chancery  courts.^  The  chief  distinc- 
tion here,  as  in  England,  is  the  necessity  of  notice  or  summons  to 
all  the  parties  in  interest  in  the  plenary  proceeding,^  while  the 
other  is  generally  ex  parte.    Another  rule  is,  that  upon 

,  .  '        „  All  attesting 

a  contest,  or  caveat,  where  probate  m  solemn  form  is  witnesses 
required,  all  the  attesting  witnesses  competent  to  '"'^'i"'''^ 
testify,  and  within  the  reach  of  the  process  of  the  court,  must  be 
examined.^  But  this  rule  is  not  a  universal  one ;  there  are  cases 
in  some  of  the  States  in  which,  on  proceedings  at  law  for  the 
probate  of  a  will,  the  testimony  of  one  or  two  subscribing  wit- 
nesses out  of  a  greater  number  was  held  sufficient  to  establish  it 
without  calling  or  examining  them  all;*  in  others,  that  the  testi- 
mony of  one  subscribing  witness,  and  facts  and  circumstances 
equal  to  that  of  another,  are  sufficient.^  In  Michigan  it  is  inti- 
mated, contrary  to  the  English  rule,  that  all  the  subscribing  wit- 
nesses need  not  be  called,  except,  inferentially,  in  the  probate 
court.^  The  age  of  the  instrument  to  be  proved  is  held  to  be  an 
important  element  to  be  considered  in  connection  with  the  suffi- 
ciency of  the  proof  to  establish  it ;  a  will  forty  years  old  may  be 
proved  by  testimony  which  would  be  insufficient  to  prove  one  of 
recent  date.''  And  it  is  not  essential  that  each  one  of  the  witnesses 
shall  be  able  to  testify  to  all  the  formalities  required  for  the  exe- 
cution and  attestation  of  the  will.^  So  it  is  held  in  Illinois,  that 
the  subscribing  witnesses  must  declare  that  the  testator  was,  in 
their  belief,  of  sound  mind  and  memory,  but  this  may  be  stated  in 

1  Ante,  §  215.  2  N.  J.  Eq.  220,  232;  Rash  v.  Purnel,  2 

2  "  In  proceedings  of  this  nature,  .  .  .     Harring.  448,  449. 

the  judge  of  probate  having  given  that  *  Hall  v.  Sims,  2  J.  J.  Marsh.  509,  511 

public  notice  which  tiie  law  requires,  the  Jackson  v.  Vickory,  1  Wend.  406,  412 

mere  fact  that  some  of  the  heirs  are  in-  Walker  v.  Hunter,  17  Ga.  ?:>^A,\\^etseq. 

flints,  idiots,  or  insane  will  not  defeat  the  McKecn  v.  Frost,  40  Me.  239,  244. 
))robate  of  the  will":  Dewey,  J.,  in  Par-  '"  Suggett   i'.    Kitchell,   6    Yerg.  425 

kery.  Parker,  11  Cush.  519,  524.     Where  Loomis   v.    Kellogg,  17  Pa.   St.  60,  63 

the  statute  prescribes  no  form  of  notice  Moore  v.   Steele,   10   Humph.  562,  565 

for  the  parties  to  pursue,  the  sufficiency  Bowling  v.  Bowling,  8  Ala.  538;  Nalle  v. 

of  notice  is  left  in  the  discretion  of  the  Fenwick,  4  Rand.  585,  588. 
judge  :  Marcy  v.  Marcy,  6  Met.  (Mass.)  *>  Abbott  v.  Abbott,  41  Mich.  540,  543. 

360,  367.  7  Wclty  v.  Welty,  8  Md.  15,  21,  citing 

3  Brown  r'.  Anderson,  13  Ga.  171,  177;  Lovelass  on  Wills.  418;  23  Law  Libr. 
Withmton  v.  Withmton,  7  Mo.  689;  Chase  (Wharton's  ed.)  1839,  p.  223  ;  Jackson  v. 
V.  Lincoln,  3  Mass.  236 ;  Burwell  v.  Cor-  Le  Grange,  19  Jolins.  386,  389. 

bin,  1  Rand.  131,  141;  Bailey  v.  Stiles,  «  Jauncey  r.  Thorne,2  Barb.  Ch.40,53. 


474  THE    PROBATE   OF   THE    WILL.  §  218 

equivalent  words ;  it  is  not  essential  that  the  statutory  formula 
shall  be  adhered  to.^ 

§  218.  Proof  when  the  Testimony  of  subscribing  Witnesses  cannot 
be  obtained.  —  It  appears  from  the  discussion  of  the  subject  of 
the  attestation  of  wills  in  a  former  chapter,^  that  the  competency 
of  attesting-  witnesses  generally  required  by  the  statute  refers  to 
the  time  of  attestation ;  for  it  may  happen  that  a  witness  has 
become  incompetent  after  the  execution  of  a  will,  but  before  the 
death  of  the  testator.  And  it  was  there  also  shown  that  the  stat- 
ute of  Geo.  II.  c.  6,  which  provides  that  interest  in  the  probate  of 
a  will  does  not  disqualify  an  attesting  witness,  but  that  the  act  of 
attestation  disqualifies  the  witness  from  taking  any  benefit  under 
the  will,  has  been  substantially  enacted  in  most  of  the  States.^ 
Aliunde  testi-  It  is  sclf-evidcntly  indispensable  to  admit  aliunde 
^S'itn'xlt'oi  evidence  to  prove  the  will,  if  any  one  or  more  of  the 
subscribing       attesting  witnesses  are  dead,  insane,  or  cannot,  for 

witnesses  is  uot  °  '  ' 

attainable.  any  rcason,  be  compelled  or  permitted  to  testify  on 
the  probate  thereof.  Thus  where  one  of  the  attesting  witnesses 
is  probate  judge,  the  will  may  be  proved  by  the  other  witnesses ;  * 
where  any  of  them  are  dead,  insane,  or  incompetent  to  testify,  or 
where  their  place  of  residence  or  whereabouts  is  unknown,  so 
that  their  testimony  cannot  be  obtained,  proof  may  be  made  of 
their  handwriting,  and  of  the  handwriting  of  the  testator,  and  the 
will  admitted  to  probate  upon  such  proof.^  But,  in  order  to  make 
such  testimony  admissible,  it  must  be  shown  that  it  is  impossible 
to  obtain  that  of  the  subscribing  witnesses,  either  by  taking  their 
depositions,  as  is  provided  for  in  some  States  in  case  of  attesting 
witnesses  being  beyond  the  reach  of  the  process  of  the  court,  or  by 
securing  their  personal  attendance.^  Where  the  statute  does  not 
authorize  the  taking  of  the  depositions  of  subscribing  witnesses, 
secondary  evidence  is  admissible,  upon  proof  of  their  being  beyond 

1  Bice  V.  Hall,  120  111.  597,  600;  Yoe  187,  192;  Pollock  i;.  Glassell,  2  Gratt.  439, 
V.  McCord,  74  111.  33.  460. 

2  Ante,  §  41,  p.  72,  note  3  et  seq.  "  Graber  v.  H;iaz,  2  Dem.  216;  Stow 

3  Ante,  §  41,  p.  73,  note  3  et  seq.  v.  Stow,  1  Redf.  305.     In  Mississippi  it  is 

4  Patten  ?'.  Tallman,  27  Me.  17,  27;  in  held  that,  on  the  ex  parte  exhibition  of  a 
some  instances  the  statutes  provide  for  will,  the  subscribing  witnesses  must  be 
probate  before  another  officer  in  such  examined,  and  are  the  only  competent 
case:  Gen.  St.  Col.  1883,  §  3504;  Rev.  witnesses  to  prove  the  signing,  publica- 
St.  111.  1885,  p.  2409,  §  5.  tion,  and  attestation  :  but  other  witnesses 

5  Miller  v.  Carothers,  6  Serg.  &  R.  215,  may  prove  the  sanity  :  Martin  v.  Perkins, 
222 ;  Hopkins  v.  De  Grafienreid,  2  Bay,  56  Miss.  204,  209. 


§  218  PROOF    WITHOUT    SUBSClilBlNG    WITNESSES.  475 

reach  of  process  of  the  court  in  which  pi'oceediiigs  arc  pending.^ 
Ill  all  such  cases  the  absence  of  the  witnesses  must  Abseiceof sub- 
be  satisfactorily  accounted  for,  after  proof  of  such  ue^'^'i"'^,"^'t"(je 
diligence  in  the  search  for  them  and  endeavor  to  ob-  accouuu-d  for. 
tain  their  testimony  as  is  required  ordinarily  before  evidence  of  a 
secondary  nature  is  admitted.'-^ 

For  the  same  reason  the  validity  of  a  will  cannot  be  permitted 
to  rest  upon  the  veracity  or  memory  of  the  attesting  witnesses : 
to  do  so  would  be  subversive  of  justice  and  destructive  Piobate  in  de- 
of  the  rights  of  the  testator,  as  w^ell  as  of  the  benefici-  a»ahi"t  t'he 
aries  under  the  will.     Hence  a  wdll  may  be  established  te!^tllnollv  of 

"^  subscribing 

although   some  or   all  of  the   subscribing   witnesses  witnesses, 
fail  to  remember  the  essential  facts  to  be  proved,^  or  where  tlnnr 
testimony,  biased  by  prejudice,  interest,  or  ill  will,  negatived  such 
facts.'*     It  is  held  that  w^here  there  is  a  failure  of  rec-  t 

.    _  Importance  of 

oUection  by  the  subscribing  w-itnesses,  the  probate  of  attestation 
the  will  cannot  be  defeated  if  the  attestation  clause 
and  the  surrounding  circumstances  satisfactorily  establish  its  exe- 
cution.^    The  testimony  of  an  attesting  witness  invalidating  a  will 
ought  to  be  viewed  with  suspicion,^  because  such  person  by  his 
act   of   attestation   solemnly  testifies   to  the  sanity  of   the   tes- 

1  Bowling  V.  Bowling,  8  Ala.  538  ;  37  N.  J.  L.  312,  325.  See  numerous  cases 
Bethell  v.  Moore,  2  Dev.  &  B.  L.  311.  cited  by  Perkins  in  Wnis.  Ex.  [103],  note 
Engies  y.  Bruington,  4  Yeates,  345.  (w)  ;    also   by  Bigelow   in   1  Jarin.  *86, 

2  Stow  V.  Stow,  1  Redf.  305  ;  Perkins's  note  (2),  and  *87,  note  (1). 

Jarm.  on   Wills,  219.     Thus,  where  one  *  Lamberts  f.  Cooper,  29  Gratt.  61,  68; 

voluntarily,  without  mistake  or  accident.  Pollock    v.    Glassell,   2   Gratt.   439,    462, 

destroyed  a  will,  he  would  not  be  permit-  citing  numerous  Englisli  cases ;   Vernon 

ted  to  prove  it  by  secondary  evidence  :  v.  Kirk,  30  Pa.  St.  218  ;  Howell's  Will,  5 

WyckofE  ('.  Wyckoff,  16  N.  J.  Eq.  401.  T.  B.  Mon.  199,  203 ,  Peebles  v.  Case,  2 

See,  as  to  diligence  required  in  search  for  Bradf.  226,  240;  Will  of  Jenkins,  43  Wis. 

subscribing  witnossos,  1  Greenl.  Ev.  §  574 ;  610,  612  ;  Abbott  v.  Abbott,  41  Mich.  540, 

Hodnett  i;.  Smith,  2  Sweeney,  401.  542;  Conselyea  v.  Walker,  2  Dem.  117, 

3  McKee  v.  White,  50  Pa.  St.  854,  359.  121. 

"  Want  of  memory   will  no  more  destroy  ^  Rugg   i'-   Rugg,  83  N.  Y.  592,   594, 

the  attestation  tlian  insanity,  absence,  or  citing  Matter  of  Kelium,  52  N.  Y.  517,  and 

death;  .  .  .  memory  can  no  more  be  kept  Trustees  v.  Calhoun,  25  N.  Y.  422,  425  ; 

alive  than  the  body,  and  hence  the  law  Will  of  Pepoon,  91  N.  Y.  255,  258 ;  Allaire 

allows  tiie  attesting  signature  to  speak,  v.   Allaire,   37   N.  J.   L.   312 ;    Brown  v. 

when  the  tongue  may  be  silent;  and  it  Clark,  77  N.  Y.  369;  1  Am.  Pr.  R.  510, 

attests  that  everything  was  rightly  done  and  cases  cited,  p.  517  et  seq. 

unless  the  act  attested  be  impeached,  not  6  Lamberts  v.  Cooper,  29  Gratt.  61,  68. 

negatively  merely,  but  positively  "  :  Kirk  As  to  the  importance  of  reciting  all  the 

V.  Carr,  54  Pa.  St.  285,  290  ;  Newhouse  v.  formalities  required  in  the  execution  and 

Godwin,  17  Barb.  236,   255;    Beadles  v.  attestation  of   a  will   in    the   attestation 

Alexander,  9  Baxt.  604 ;  Allaire  v.  Allaire,  clause,  see  ante,  §  40,  and  supra,  note  3. 


476  THE    PROBATE   OF    THE    WILL.  §  219 

tator ;  ^  it  was  said  that  no  fact  stated  by  such  a  witness  can  be 
rehed  on  when  he  is  not  corroborated  by  other  witnesses.^  But  of 
whatever  effect  the  recitals  in  the  attestation  clause  may  be  where 
the  witness  fails  to  remember  what  occurred,  they  are  not  sufficient 
to  outweigh  his  positive  statements  in  contradiction  thereof.^ 

§  219.  Witnesses  Disqualified  by  Interest. — The  competency  of 
attesting  witnesses,  to  what  extent  and  in  what  States  an  interest 
Disquaiifica-  i^^  ^hc  will  disqualifies  them,  and  how  and  when  their 
witnesses  by  Competency  may  be  restored,  as  well  as  the  effect  of 
interest.  f\^Q  testimony  of  such  witnesses  upon  a  devise  or  leg- 

acy to  them,  has  been  discussed  in  a  former  chapter  in  connection 
with  the  attestation  of  wills.*  But  one  who  is  not  an  attesting  or 
subscribing  witness  may  also  be  incompetent,  by  reason  of  inter- 
est in  the  probate,  to  testify.  Thus,  it  was  held  in  Alabama,  that 
the  proponent,  being  interested  in  the  question  of  costs,  was  in- 
competent to  testify  in  support  of  the  will  ;  ^  and  in  New  Jersey, 
that  an  executor  was  disqualified  because  of  the  commissions  to 
which  he  would  be  entitled.^  This  subject  is  determined  by  the 
law  of  each  State  in  defining  the  competency  of  witnesses  in  ordi- 
nary cases.  The  rule  which  excluded  witnesses  on  account  of 
their  interest  has  been  greatly  relaxed  in  most  of  the  States  ;  and 
it  seems  now  that  one  who  would  be  competent  to  testify  in  an 
action  between  himself  and  the  parties  interested  in  the  probate 
of  the  will,  is  competent  to  give  evidence  for  or  against  it.'  In 
Maine,  it  is  held  that  the  provision  of  the  statute  which  excepts 
executors,  administrators,  and  heirs  of  a  deceased  person  from 
the  operation  of  the  general  law  providing  that  no  one  shall  be 
excused  or  excluded  from  testifying  on  the  ground  of  interest  in 
the  event  of  the  suit,  as  party  or  otherwise,  does  not  apply  to  one 
named  as  executor  in  a  will,  because  such  person  is  not  really  and 
legally  an  executor  until  the  will  has  been  established,^  nor  to  one 

1  Webb  V.  Dye,  18  W.  Va.  376,  388 ;  affirmative  testimony  showing  the  omis- 

Young  V.  Earner,  27  Gratt.  96,  103.  sion  of  some  essential   requisite   to  the 

-  Staples,  J.,  in  Cheatham  v.  Hatcher,  validity  of  the  will. 
.SO  Gratt.  56,  64,  citing  Kinleside  v.  Har-  *  Ante,  §  41. 

rison,  2  Piiillim.  449.  ^  Gilbert  r.  Gilbert,  22  Ala.  529,  532. 

3  Burke  v.  Nolan,  1  Dem.  436,  442 ;  e  Snedekers  v.  Allen,  2  N.  J.  L.  35,  38. 

Lewis  V.  Lewis,  11  N.  Y.  220,  224,  citing  ^  Milton  v.  Hunter,  13  Bush,  163,  168 ; 

English  and  American  cases  ;    Orser  v.  Harper  v.  Harper,  1  Th.  &  C  351,  359, 

Orser,  24  N.  Y.  51,  54  ;  Barr  v.  Graybill,  360  ;  Elliott  (•.  Welby,  13  Mo.  App.  19,  28. 

13  Pa.  St.  396,  399,  distinguishing  between  But  see,  as  to  the  law  in  Missouri,  infra. 
the  want  of  memory  by  the  witness,  and  ^  McKeen  v.  Frost,  46  Me.  239,  248. 


§  219  WITNESSES   DISQUALIFIED    BY   INTEREST.  477 

who  opposes  the  probate  as  guardian  of  minor  heirs. ^  In  Massa- 
chusetts, the  exception  from  such  an  enabling  statute  of  "  attesting 
witnesses  to  a  will  or  codicil  "  is  held  not  to  apply  to  an  executor 
who  is  also  one  of  the  subscribing  witnesses ;  "^  which  would,  a 
fortiori^  qualify  one  who  is  named  as  executor,  but  who  is  not  a 
subscribing  witness,  as  a  competent  witness  to  the  probate.  So 
in  New  York.^  In  Missouri,  the  statute  removing  the  disability 
of  witnesses  on  account  of  interest  was  held  to  enable  beneficiaries 
under  a  will,  who  were  not  subscribing  witnesses,  to  testify  in 
support  of  its  probate;'^  but  this  was  subsequently  qualified  to 
the  extent  of  requiring  proof  to  be  made  of  due  execution  and 
attestation  by  the  subscribing  witnesses,  and  holding  interested 
witnesses  incompetent  to  supply  such  proof  ;  ^  and  later  still  it 
was  held  by  the  Supreme  Court  that  a  legatee  whose  interest  in 
the  establishment  of  a  will  still  continues,  though  not  an  attesting 
witness,  will  not  be  allowed  to  testify  as  to  its  due  execution.^* 
In  North  Carolina,  the  statute  of  1866,  removing  the  disqualiiica- 
tion  of  interest,  is  held  to  apply  to  witnesses  in  will  cases,  render- 
ing legatees  and  devisees  competent  to  prove  the  will,  except  they 
be  attesting  witnesses.'  In  Pennsylvania,  one  appointed  as  ex- 
ecutrix is  held  competent  to  testify  to  the  proper  execution  of  a 
will.^ 

There  seems  to  be  no  reason  why  a  legatee  or  other  person 
interested  in  the  will  should  not  be  competent  to  testify  against  a 
will,  on  the  same  ground  which  renders  an  heir  competent  to  tes- 
tify in  its  favor,  where  his  interest  is  diminished  by  the  probate  of 
the  will.9 

1  Ibid.,  p.  249.  they  should  be  permitted  to  prove  the 

2  Wynian  r.  Sy dimes,  10  Allen,  153, 154.  execution  of  the  will  because  they  had 

3  Matter  of  Wilson's  Will,  103  N.Y  374.  not    signed    it   as   attesting:    witnesses." 
*  Garvin  v.  Williams,  50  Mo.  206,  212,  The   cases  of  Garvin   v.  Williams,    and 

following  Shailer  v.  Bumstead,  99  Mass.  Gamache  v.  Gambs,  supra,  are  alluded  to, 

112,  which  similarly  construes  a  Massa-  and  held  not  in  conflict  with  tlie  doctrine 

chusetts  statute  of  like  import ;  Gamache  announced. 

V.  Gambs,  52  Mo.  287  ;  Harris  v.  Hays,  "  Thus  a  devisee   under  a  holograph 

53  Mo.  90,  95.  will  was   held   competent   to   prove   tiie 

s  Miltenberger  v.  Miltenberger,  8  Mo.  same,  and  that  such  testimony  did  not 

App.  306.  avoid  the  devise,  because  the  operative 

''  Miltenberger  i\  Miltenberger,  78  Mo.  words   of   tlie   avoiding   act  apply   only 

27,  30.     The  reason  given   is  that  "  leg-  to  wills   that    have  attesting   witnesses  : 

atees  and  devisees  are  not  allowed  to  be  Hampton  v.  Hardin,  88  N.  C.  592,  595. 
attesting  witnesses  while  their  interest  as  ^  Combs  and  Hankinson's  Appeal,  105 

such   continues,    and    the   policy  of   the  Pa.  St.  155. 

law,  as  indicated  in  these  sections  (of  the  ^  Leslie  v.  Sims,  39  Ala.  101  ;  Smallcy 

statute)   would  be  entirely  frustrated  if  y.  Sraalley,  70  Me.  545 ;  Crocker  r.  Chase, 


478  THE   PROBATE    OF   THE   WILL.  §  220 

§  220.  Proof  of  the  Testator's  Sanity.  —  The  necessity  of  making 
proof  of  the  testator's  sanity  in  order  to  secure  the  [)robate  of  liis 
will,  and  tliat  the  burden  of  making  such  proof  rests  naturally 
upon  the  proponent,  has  been  pointed  out  in  a  former  chapter.^ 
It  was  there  shown  that  in  a  number  of  States  the  proponent  may 
rely  upon  the  ordinary  presumption  of  sanity  as  constituting  the 
prima  facie  proof,  sufficient  in  the  absence  of  rebutting  evidence  ; 
but  that  in  others  affirmative  proof  is  required  on  this  point,  in 
default  of  which  the  will  cannot  receive  probate.  It  was  also 
shown,  that  the  testimony  of  non-experts  is  necessarily  admissible 
to  establish  the  sanity  or  insanity  of  the  testator  in  proceedings 
to  establish  the  will,^  and  that  there  is  a  difference  between  the 
testimony  of  experts  and  non-experts  in  this,  that  the  latter  must 
give  not  only  their  opinion  of  the  testator's  sanity,  but  also  the 
facts  upon  which  such  opinion  is  based  ;  except  that  subscrib- 
ing witnesses  are  always  heard  on  this  question, ^  and  are  not 
usually  requii^ed  to  state  the  facts  upon  which  their  opinion  rests. 
What  testi-  Testimony  may  be  given  as  to  the  mental  condition  of 
mony  is  admis-  the  tcstator  recently  before,  at,  and  shortly  after  the 

sible  to  prove  j  i        ■>  j 

testator's  time  of  making  the  will ;  and  it  is  comj)etent  for  the  wit- 

^^"'  ^"  ness,  though  neither  an  expert  nor  attesting  witness, 

to  state  whether  he  observed  any  incoherence  of  thought  in  the 
testator,  or  anything  unusual  or  singular  in  respect  to  his  men- 
tal condition  ;*  whether,  in  his  opinion,  the  testator  had  mind 
enough  to  enable  him  to  have  a  reasonable  judgment  of  the  kind 
and  value  of  the  property  he  proposed  to  dispose  of  by  will ;  ^ 
whether  he  appeared  unconscious  of  what  was  going  on  around 
him,  and  much  prostrated  by  sickness,  and   did  not  appear  to 

57  Vt.  413,  421  (excluding  the  witness,  whether  there  was  an  apparent  change 

however,  on  another  ground).  in  a  man's  intelligence  or  understanding, 

1  j\„te,  §  26.  or  ^  want  of  coherence  in  his  remarks, 

2  Ante,  §  28 ;  see  Beaubien  v.  Cicotte,  is  a  matter  not  of  opinion,  but  of  fact,  as 
12  Mich.  4.59.  501,  and  a  long  list  of  cases  to  which  any  witness  who  has  had  oppor- 
cited  by  Perkins, Wms. Ex.  [346], note(d'5).  tunity  to  observe  may  testify,  in  order  to 

3  See  list  of  cases  so  holdingby  Perkins  put  before  the  court  or  jury  the  acts  and 
in  Wms.  Ex.  [346],  note  (d^),  commencing  conduct  from  which  the  degree  of  his 
with  Pobinson  r.  Adams,  62  Me.  369,  409.  mental  capacity  may  be  inferred  "  :  Gray, 

4  "  We  do  not  understand  this  to  be  J.,  in  Barker  r.  Comins,  110  Mass.  477, 
the  giving  of  an  opinion  as  to  the  con-  487,  citing  Hastings  v.  Rider,  99  Mass. 
dition  of  the  mind  it.<!elf,  but  only  of  its  622,  625. 

manifestations  in  conversation  with   the  ^  Bost  v.  Bost,  87   N.  C.  477,   citing 

witness":  Wells,  J.,  in  Nash  v.  Hunt,  Lawrence  v.  Steel,  6')  N.  C.  584,  and 
116    Mass.    237,    251.      "  The    question     Home  v.  Home,  9  Ired.  99. 


§  220  PROOF   OF    THE   TESTATOR'S   SANITY.  479 

know  a  certain  individual,  one  of  his  neighbors ;  whether  an  en- 
deavor to  converse  with  him  proved  unsuccessful  because  he  was 
insensible ;  ^  whether  his  eyesight  was  good  enough  to  have  ena- 
bled him  to  see  the  Avitness,  if  his  mind  had  been  right ;  whether 
he  looked  at  the  witness  with  a  vacant  stare  ;  and  whether  his 
countenance  and  appearance  indicated  childishness  ;  ^  and  it  is 
said  that  the  testimony  of  opinions  and  impressions  obtained 
from  personal  knowledge  and  actual  observation  in  such  cases 
are  "  no  more  nor  less  than  statements  of  fact  differing  from 
ordinary  statements  only  because  of  the  peculiarity  of  the  sub- 
ject." ^  But  the  mere  naked  opinion  of  persons  who  are  neither 
subscril)ing  witnesses  nor  experts  is  inadmissible  ;*  nor  can  such 
persons  be  allowed  to  give  their  opinion  upon  a  hypothetical  case 
proved  by  others,  but  not  witnessed  by  themselves.^ 

The  testimony  of  educated  practising  physicians  is  admitted 
upon  subjects  of  medical  science  ;  and  it  has  been  held  that  the 
difference  between  the  opinion  of  one  who  has  made  Testimony  of 
insanity  a  special  study,  and  that  of  one  who  has  not,  ^-^^p^''^^- 
is  in  the  weight,  rather  than  in  the  competency,  of  the  testimony.^ 
But  one  who  has  not  made  the  subject  of  mental  disease  a  special 
study  should  not  be  permitted  to  give  his  opinion  on  a  hypotheti- 
cal case,  although  he  might  give  his  opinion  as  to  tlie  mind  of  a 
person  so  far  as  he  could  testify  from  his  personal  observation  ;  ^ 

1  Halley  !?.  Webster,  21  Me.  461,  464.  note  ((F), oommencing  with  Clary  ?;.  Clary, 

"  Tliese."  the  court  say,  "  were  not  mere  2  Ired.  78. 

matters  of  opinion,  but  facts,  somewhat  ■*  Wms.   Ex.    [346],    ottinsr  mimerous 

of  a  general  cast,  and  combining  many  American  cases,  note  (d')  ;  Ellis  v.  Ellis, 

particulars."  133  Mass.  469. 

•^  Irish  V.  Smith,  8  Serg.  &  R.  573,  578.  5  Bell  v.  McMaster,  20  Hnn,  272,  citing 
In  this  case  evidence  was  held  proper  Clarp  r.  Fullerton,  34  N.  Y.  190 ;  Hew- 
that  the  testator's  wife  said  in  presence  lett  v.  Wood,  55  N.  Y.  634 ;  Appleby  v. 
of  her  husband,  sitting  at  the  table,  that  Brock,  76  Mo.  314,  318. 
he  did  not  attend  to  business,  that  he  ®  Baxter  v.  Abbott,  7  Gray,  71,  78. 
was  incapable,  and  that  the  testator  said  Even  as  to  the  weight  of  such  evidence, 
nothing :  p.  578.  Thomas,  J.,  holds  the  preference  to  be 

3  Perkins  in   Wms.  Ex.   [347],  citing  with  a  family  physician,  whose  opinion 

Campbell,  J.,  in  Beaubien  v.  Cicotte,  12  "  sliould  have  far  greater  weight  with  a 

Mich.   450,  507  ;    Potts  v.  House,  6  Ga.  jury  than  that  of  any  number  of  physi- 

324;  Duffield  v.  Morris,  2  Harring.  375;  cians  who  had  made   insanity  a  special 

Grant  v.  Thompson,  4  Conn.  203,  208 ;  study,  but  who  were   called  to  give  an 

Harrison  v.  Rowan,  3  Wash.  C.  C.  580;  opinion  upon  wliat  is  always,  and  neces- 

Rambler    v.   Tryon,   7    Serg.   &  R.  90;  sarily,   an   imperfect   statement    of    the 

Tnwnshend    i'.   Townshend,    7   Gill,    10;  facts  and  symptoms":  p.  79. 
Dunham's   Appeal,   27   Conn.    192,    197.  ''  Commonwealth   v.   Rich,   14   Gray, 

See  also  list  of  cases,  Wms.  Ex.  [346J,  335,  337. 


480  THE   PROBATE   OF   THE   WILL.  §  221 

Physicians  and  and  this  altliougli  hc  is  not  the  family  physician.i  So 
sick-nurses  T)hvsicians  in  a-encral  practice  and  sick-nurses  are  sup- 
experts.  poscd  to  be  cxpcrts  as  to  the  effect,  upon  the  mental 

capacity  of  a  patient,  of  the  progress  of  a  disease  resulting  in 
death.2  Ordinarily,  the  witness  allowed  to  give  his  opinion  on  a 
state  of  facts  not  within  his  own  knowledge,  but  which  is  sup- 
posed to  be  in  evidence  before  the  jury,  or,  as  is  usually  said,  upon 
a  hypothetical  case,  must  first  be  shown  to  be  an  expert ;  ^  and 
whether  a  witness  not  shown  to  be  an  expert  is  qualified  to  ex- 
press an  opinion  as  a  conclusion  of  fact,  is  to  be  decided  by  the 
judge  presiding  at  the  trial.'^  Whether  one  has  merely  studied  a 
profession  or  science,  without  being  engaged  in  the  practice  of  it, 
or  is  in  full  practice,  and  how  long,  do  not  affect  the  competency 
of  such  person  as  a  witness,  but  may  go  to  his  credit.^  No  pref- 
erence is  given  in  law  to  any  particular  school  of  the  medical 
profession.^ 

§  221.  Proof  of  Lost  Wills.  —  The  presumption  arising,  where 
a  will  which  was  in  the  possession  of  the  deceased  cannot  be 
Thepresump-  found  at  the  time  of  his  death,  that  it  was  destroyed 
tion  alihnT^'^'  ^J  ^^^  tcstatoF  animo  revocandi,  may  be  rebutted  by 
revocandi  of  a     pj-Qof  that  it  was  destroyed  after  his  death,  or  during 

lost  will  may       ^  •'  ^ 

be  rebutted,  his  lifetime  without  his  knowledge  or  consent ; '  or  by 
the  testator  himself  while  he  was  under  the  fraudulent  influence  of 
another,^  or  in  a  fit  of  insanity,  when  he  was  incapable  of  under- 
and  the  will  standing  the  nature  and  effect  of  his  act,^  and  such  a 
t*o  probatef     will  may,  upon  positive  proof  of  destruction,  or  of  dili- 

1  Hastings  v.  Rider,  99  Mass.  622,  625;  «  Bowman  v.  Woods,  1  Green  (Iowa), 
Hathorn  i'.  King,  8  Mass.  371.  441. 

2  Fairchild  v.  Bascomb,  35  Vt.  398,  ^  Ante,  §  48,  page  91 ;  Happy's  Will, 
408.  4  Bibb,  553;  Gaines  v.  Hennen,  24  How. 

3  Kempsey  v.  McGinniss,  21  Mich.  (U.  S.)  553,  559 rtsfg.;  Graham  r  OTallon, 
123, 137.  A  hypotlietical  question,  asked  3  Mo  507  ;  Kitchens  r.  Kitchens,  39  Ga. 
an  expert,  should  include  only  such  facts  168;  Hall  v.  Al'en,  31  Wis.  691  ;  Morris 
as  are  admitted  or  established,  or  which  r.  Swaney,  7  Heisk.  591  ;  Baugnrtli  r 
there  is  some  evidence  tending  to  estab-  Miller,  26  Oh.  St.  541 ;  Kearns  v.  Kearus, 
lish  ;  it  is  not  a  question  as  to  the  weight  4  Harring.  83  ;  Everitt  v.  Everitt,  41  Barb, 
of  evidence,  but  whether  there  was  any  385;  Minklerj;.  Minkler,  14  Vt.  125;  Kid- 
evidence  tending  to  prove  the  fact ;  Nor-  der's  Estate,  57  Cal.  282  ;  Jaques  v.  Her- 
man's Will,  72  Iowa,  84 ;  Ray  v.  Ray,  98  ton,  76  Ala.  238,  245. 

N.  C.  566.  '^  Voorhees  v.  Voorhees,  39  N.  Y.  463, 

*  Commonwealth    v.    Sturtivant,   117  466. 
Mass.  122,  137;  Tullis  v.  Kidd,  12  Ala.  ^  Idley  r.Bowen.ll  Wend.227 ;  Apper- 

648,  650.  son  v.  Coftrell,  3  Port.  51, 65 ;  Cunningham 

6  Tullis  V.  Kidd,  supra.  v.  Somerville,  36  N.  W.  Rep.  269  (Minn.). 


§221 


PROOF   OF    LOST    WILLS. 


481 


gent  search  and    non-existence,  be  admitted    to  probate.^     The 
proof  must  show  that  the  destruction  was  unauthor- 

.  IT  "P""  proof  of 

ized  and  improper  ;  -  and  if  by  some  one  after  the  destiuctioa  by 
testator's  death,  that  it  was  accidental ;  for  if  it  ap- 
pear that  the  proponent  destroyed  it  voluntarily,  without  mistake 
or  accident,  he  will  not  be  permitted  to  prove  it  by  secondary  evi- 
dence.3  In  Ohio,  the  pi'oof  must  show  loss  or  destruction  after 
the  testator's  death,  or  it  cannot  receive  probate  unless  pro- 
duced ;  *  and  so  in  New  York,  unless  the  same  was  fraudulently 
destroyed  during  the  testator's  lifetime.^  Generally,  however,  the 
presumption  of  destruction  animo  revocandi  may  be  rebutted  by 
such  evidence  as  produces  a  moral  conviction  to  the  contrary,^ 
and  the  acts  and  declarations  of  the  testator  are  admissible  for 
such  purposed  So  also  it  may  be  proved  by  circumstantial  evi- 
dence that  the  will  has  been  lost  or  destroyed  without  the  knowl- 
edge of  the  testator.^     Where  a  will  is  detained  bv  a  „,.„  ,     .    , 

'^  "  Will  detained 

foreign  court,  so  that  the  proponent  cannot  produce  it  by  a  foreij^n 
for  probate,  secondary  evidence  thereof  is  admissible,  proved  iVke  a 
as  much  so  as  if  it  were  a  lost  will.^ 


lost  wil 


1  Cases  on  preceriitig  page ;  Eure  v. 
Pittraan,  3  Hawks,  364  ;  Raster  v.  Raster, 
52  Ind.  531 ;  Wyckoff  v.  Wyckoff,  16  N.  J. 
Eq.  401  ;  Harris  v.  Harris,  36  Barb.  88  ; 
Apperson  v.  Cottrell,  3  Port.  51,  65,  citing 
Trevelvaii  ;;.  Trevelyan,  1  Pliillim.  14U, 
153 

■-  Idley  V.  Bowen,  11  Wend.  227,  237. 

3  Wyckoff  y.  Wyckoff,  .s»/«y7. 

^  Sinclair's  Will,  5  Oil.  St.  290. 

5  Code  Civ.  Pr.  §  1865;  Matter  of 
Marsh,  45  Hiin,  107. 

6  Will  of  Foster,  18  Phila.  567,  568  (cit- 
ing Davis  V.  Davis,  2  Addams,  223,  226  ;  1 
Redf.  Wills,  329);  s.  c.  87  Pa.  St.  67,  75. 

''  Will  of  Foster,  supra,  drawing  a  dis- 
tinction between  the  declarations  of  a 
testator  touching  the  contents  of  a  will, 
which  are  of  little  weight  especially  when 
made  to  importuning  relatives,  and  such 
declarations  as  showing  the  testator's 
conviction  that  he  has  a  will  in  existence 
at  the  time  of  his  death,  and  citing  Jones 
V.  Murphy,  8  W.  &  S.  275,  Youndt  v. 
Youndt,  3  Grant,  140,  and  Havard  v. 
Davis,  2  Binn.  406  ;  Johnson's  Will,  40 
Conn.  587,  588  ;  Matter  of  Page,  118  111. 
576,  579 ;  Durant  v.  Ashmore,  2  Rich. 
184.     So  his  declarations  that  he  has  no 

VOL.  I.  —  31 


will,  or  that  he  has  destroyed  his  will, 
are  evidence  to  show  that  the  will  has 
been  revoked  :  Durant  v.  Ashmore,  supra  ; 
Miller  t'.  Phillips,  9  R.  L  141,  where 
declarations  of  the  testatrix  were  allowed 
to  rebut  the  presiinij)tion  of  revocation 
by  her  marriage.  In  New  York  it  was 
held  that  declarations  of  the  deceased  are 
incompetent  to  prove  tiie  e.xistence  and 
contents  of  a  will :  Grant  v.  Grant,  1 
Sandf.  Ch.  285,  237,  citing  Dan  r.  Brown, 
4  Cow.  483,  and  Jackson  v.  Betts,  6  Cow. 
377 ;  but  the  better  opinion  seems  to  be 
that  such  declarations  are  admissible  as 
circumstances  :  Hatch  v.  Sigman,  1  Dem. 
519,  525;  Matter  of  Marsh,  45  Hun,  107, 
reviewing  the  authorities.  See  Wilbourn 
V.  Shell,  59  :\Iiss.  205,  where  a  holograph 
which  the  testator  caused  to  be  copied  to 
correct  the  spelling  and  make  it  more  legi- 
ble, and  attempted  to  execute  the  copy, 
in  which  he  failed  on  account  of  defective 
attestation,  was  admitted  to  probate  not- 
withstanding its  destruction  by  the  testa- 
tor, on  the  testimony  of  a  single  witness. 

8  Schultz  V.  Schultz,  .35  N.'  Y.  653. 

9  Loring  v.  Oakey,  98  Mass.  2fw,  269  ; 
Per  Field,  J.,  in  Robertson  v.  Pickrell, 
109  U.  S.  608,  610.     And  see  Russell  v. 


482  THE   PROBATE   OF   THE    WILL.  §  221 

The  execution  and  attestation  of  the  lost  will  must  be  proved 
M'ith  the  ti-diua  certainty  and  fulness  as  in  case  of  proving  an 
I'roof  of  execu-  existing  will,  including  proof  of  the  testator's  sanity 
tal'iou  oflosT  01'  testamentary  capacity  ;  and  by  the  same  witnesses 
will-  which  are  required  to  prove  a  will  produced  for  pro- 

bate. Thus  the  subscribing  witnesses  must  be  called,  if  within 
reach  of  the  process  of  the  court ;  and  if  not,  depositions  of  such 
as  may  be  reached  must  be  taken,  and  if  the  law  does  not  require 
the  depositions  of  witnesses  residing  abroad,  then  proof  may  be 
taken  as  in  case  of  the  death  or  insanity  of  subscribing  witnesses. ^ 
The  declarations  of  the  deceased  that  he  had  made  a  will  are  not 
sufficient  to  prove  either  the  due  execution  or  the  contents  of  a 
will,  unless  corroborated  by  other  evidence,  and  if  there  is  no 
corroborating  evidence,  such  declarations  should  be  rejected  ;  ^ 
and  if  there  is  no  legal  evidence  that  a  will  ever  existed,  there 
can  be  no  evidence  of  its  fraudulent  abstraction  or  suppression.^ 

The  contents  of  the  lost  will  upon  which  probate  is  prayed 
must  be  proved  clearly  and  distinctly,^  with  a  sufficient  degree  of 
^     ,  ,  certainty  to  establish  the  legacies  and  devises,  and 

Proof  of  con-  •'  "^ 

tents  of  lost       that  uoue  have  been  omitted.^     It  was  laid  down  by 
Swinburne,^  that,  "  if  there  be  two  unexceptionable 
witnesses  who  did  see  and  read  the  testament  written,  and  do  re- 
member the  contents  thereof,  these  two  witnesses,  so  deposing  to 

Hartt,  87  N.  Y.  19,  where  the  foreic^n  will  Houghton,  6  Abb.  N.  C.  234  ;  and  they 

was   inspected  by  commissioners  of  the  need  not  testify  to  the  exact  langnacre  ; 

court  :  Matter  of  Dehiplaine,  5  Dem.  398,  but  must  prove  sufficient  of  the  substance 

affirmed  45  Hun,  225.  to  enable  the  deciee  of  probate  to  incor- 

1  Bailey  v.  Stiles,  2  N.  J.  Eq.  220  231 ;  porate  tlie  whole  will :  McNaliy  v.  Brown, 
Graham  v.  O'Fallon,  3  Mo.  507  (granting  5  Hedf.  372  ;  the  appointment  of  an  exec- 
probate  of  the  lost  will  on  the  evidence  utor  is  not  an  indispensable  part  of  the 
of  one  of  the  subscribing  witnesses);  will,  and  it  is  not  essential  to  prove  it: 
Durant  v.  Ashmore,  2  Ricii.  184  (showing  Early  v.  Early,  5  Redf.  376. 

the  competence  of  attesting  witnesses  to  ^  Will    of    Foster,    supra  ;    Davis    r. 

be  the  same   where   the   will  is  lost  as  Sigourney,  8  Met.  (Mass.)  487;  IMcBeth 

where  it  still  exists) ;  Matter  of  Russell,  v.   McBeth,   11   Ala.  598.     In  Skeggs   v. 

33  Hun   271  •  CoUyer  v.  CoUver,  4  Dem.  Horton,  82  Ala.  352,  a  charge  to  the  jury, 

53 ;  Matter  of  Page,  118  111.  576,  578.  that  "  unless  the  evidence  of  contents  of 

2  Mercer  v.  Mackin,  14  Bush,  434,4.39.  the  alleged  will  is  clear  and  positive,  — 

3  Mercer  v.  Mackin,  supra.  not  vague  or  uncertain  recollections,  — 
*  In   New    York   and   California   two     and  of  such  a  character  as  to  leave  no 

witnesses  are  required  by  tlie  statute  to  reasonable  doubt  as  to  any  of  the  sub- 
prove  the  contents  of  a  lost  will :  Kidder's  stantial  parts  of  the  paper,  the  jury  should 
Estate,  66  Cal.  487  ;  but  a  correct  draft  find  for  the  contestants,"  was  said  to  in- 
or  copy  of  it  is  in  New  York  held  to  be  voke  too  strict  a  rule,  and  was  therefore 
equivalent  to  one  witness  :  Collyer  v.  rightly  refused. 
CoUyer,  4   Dem.    53,    62  ;    Sheridan   v.  «  Swinb.,  pt.  6,  §  14,  pi.  4. 


§  221  PlIOOF   OF    LOST    WILLS.  483 

the  tenor  of  the  will,  arc  suflficicnt  for  the  proof  thereof  in  form 
of  law ;  1  but  it  seems  now  to  be  held  in  Kn.uiand,  that  the  con- 
tents of  a  lost  will,  like  those  of  any  other  instrument,  may  be 
proved  by  secondary  evidence  ;  that  they  may  be  proved  by  the 
evidence  of  a  single  witness,  though  interested,  whose  veracity 
and  competency  are  unimpeached  ;  and  that  declarations,  wi-itten 
or  oral,  made  by  a  testator,  both  before  and  after  the  execution 
of  his  will,  are  in  the  event  of  its  loss  admissible  as  secondary 
evidence  of  its  contents.^  In  the  absence  of  statutory  provisions 
on  this  subject  this  is  recognized  in  the  several  States  to  be  the 
law,  at  least  to  the  extent  of  establishing  the  contents  proof  where 
by  the  testimony  of  a  single  witness.^  The  rule,  that,  gtrl!ye(i''r.y 
where  one  destroys  a  written  instrument,  an  innocent  hens  at  law. 
party  will  not  be  required  to  make  strict  proof,  in  a  judicial 
inquiry  concerning  its  contents,  against  the  spoliator,  is  some- 
times applied  to  a  will ;  where  part  of  the  heirs  of  a  testator  con- 
nive at  the  destruction  of  his  will,  an  innocent  legatee  may  obtain 
probate  of  the  same  upon  proof  in  general  terms  of  the  disposition 
which  the  testator  made  of  his  property,  and  that  the  instrument 
purported  to  be  his  will  and  was  duly  attested  by  the  requisite 
number  of  witnesses ;  and  in  such  case  it  is  not  necessary  to 
prove  the  sanity  of  the  testator  by  affirmative  evidence  in  the 
absence  of  proof  to  the  contrary.* 

It  appears  from  a  discussion  on  the  revocation  of  wills,  in  a 
former  chapter,^  that  the  execution  of  a  later  will  inconsistent 
with  a  former  one  operates  as  a  revocation  of  the  former  will, 
though  the   revoking  will    is    not    produced.^     Mr.   Williams  in- 

1  Wms.  Ex.  [378]  et  spq.  Lewis  v.  Lewis,  6  S.  &  R.  489,  dictum  by 
'^  Perkins's  nnte  to  Wms.  Ex.  [380]  ;  Duncan,  J.,  497  ;  Baker  v.  Dobyns,  4 
Snellen  v.  Lord  St.  Leonards,  L.  R.  1  Pr.  Dana,  220,  221 ;  Matter  of  Page,  118  111. 
D.  154  ;  see  opinion  of  Sir  J.  Hannen,Pr.,  57();  Dickey  v.  Maleclii,  citing  earlier 
p.  176,  of  Cockburn,  C.  J.,  p.  220  <(  sw/.,  of  Missouri  cases,  6  Mo.  177,  184 ;  Kearns  r. 
Jessel,  M.  R.,  p.  238;  tlie  case  of  Hrown  Kearns,  4  Harring.  83  (where  the  will 
I'.  Hrown,  8  E.  &  B.  876,  so  holding,  is  was  destroyed  by  the  heir  at  law).  See 
contrasted  with  Wliarram  r.  Wharram,  Jackson,  C.  J.,  in  Biirge  v.  Hamilton,  72 
3  Sw.  &  Tr.  301,  33  L.  J.  (P.  M.  &  A.)  Ga.  568,  613.  But  in  Tennessee  two  wit- 
75,  and  fully  approved  by  all  the  judges  nesses  are  necessary :  Hunter  v.  Garden- 
after  a  full  discussion.  This  case  over-  hire,  13  Lea,  658,  fi62. 
rules  Quick  c.  Quick,  3  Sw.  &  Tr.  442,  *  Anderson  v.  Irwin,  101  111.  411,414; 
hohling  declarations  of  an  alleged  testator  Kearns  r.  Kearns,  4  Harring.  83. 
as  to  the  contents  of  a  will  not  produced  ^  Ante,  §  51,  page  98. 
incompetent  to  prove  its  contents.  ^  Jones  v.  Murphy,  8  Watts  &  S.  275, 
3  Skeggs  r.  Horton,  82  Ala.  352  ;  citing  Clark  v.  Morton,  5  Rawle,  2.35,  and 
Jacques    v.   Horton,   76   Ala.    238,  246  ;  Lawson  v.  Morrison,  2  Dallas,  286. 


484  THE   PROBATE   OF   THE   WILL.  §  222 

Proof  of  a  lost    sists,^  that    where    the    revocation    of    an    existini^ 

will  revoking  a  t    »      t    i         i  p       c      i  ' 

former  will.  will  is  soiight  to  be  estabushed  by  the  prooi  oi  the 
execution  of  a  subsequent  will,  not  appearing,  the  evidence  ought 
to  be  most  clear  and  satisfactory,  and  if  parol  evidence  alone  be 
relied  on,  such  evidence  ought  to  be  stringent  and  conclusive;^ 
yet  the  proof  may  be  sufficient  to  be  availed  of  as  a  revocation  in 
o(tposition  to  the  probate  of  the  will  revoked  by  it,  though  insuffi- 
cient to  justify  the  probate  of  the  lost  wnll.^ 

It  seems  to  result  from  the  necessity  of  proving  the  contents 
of  a  lost  will  with  sufficient  certainty  and  clearness  to  admit  of 
Proof  of  part  their  legal  construction,  that  a  part  only  of  a  lost  or 
of  a  lost  will,  destroyed  will,w^liere  other  parts  cannot  be  proved,  or 
where  it  is  not  known  whether  the  instrument  contained  other 
or  contradictory  provisions,  cannot  be  admitted  to  probate.  It 
is  so  held  in  several  States.*  But  in  others,  isolated  portions 
of  lost  wills  clearly  proved  have  been  established,  although  other 
portions  could  not  be  proved.^  The  subject  of  proving  lost  wills 
is  now  regulated  by  statute  in  many  of  the  States.^ 

§  222.  Probate  of  Wills  iii  Part  and  in  Fac  Simile. — Although 
it  is  not  the  province  of  the  court  of  probate  to  pass  upon  or 
Parts  of  a  will  determine  the  legal  validity  of  the  provisions  of  a  will, 
Jroljate'lTnd  OY  whether  they  are  rational  and  capable  of  being 
Uiereor'^'^  Carried  into  effect,  yet  it  becomes  necessary  some- 
rejected,  times,  to  admit  the  will  to  probate  in  part,  and  reject 
it  in  part.  For  if  a  court  of  probate  be  satisfied  that  a  particular 
clause  has  been  inserted  by  fraud,  in  the  lifetime  of  the  testator, 
without  his  knowledge,"  or  by  forgery  after  his  death,^  or  that  he 
has  been  induced  by  fraud  to  make  it  a  part  of  his  will,^  probate 
wdll  be  granted  of  the  instrument,  with  the  reservation  of  that 

1  Wms.  Ex.  [162].  ^  Jackson    v    Jackson,    4    Mo.   210  ; 

2  Citing  ditto  v.  Gilbert,  9  Moore,  P.  Dickey  v.  Malechi,  G  Mo.  177 ;  Steele  v. 
C.  131   140   141.  Price,  5  B.  Mon.  58,  72 ;  Burge  v.  Hamil- 

3  Wallis  V.  Wallis,  114  Mass.  510,  cit-  ton,  72  Ga.  568,  02.3,  632  ;  Skeggs  v. 
ing  Helyar  v.  Helyar,  1  Lee,  472;    Nel-  Horton,  82  Ala.  352. 

son  V.  McGiffert,  3  Barb.  Oh.  158,  164;  «  So  in  California  and  Colorado. 

Drty  V.  Day,  3  N.  J.   Eq.   549;  and  see  '  1  Wms.  Ex.  [377],  citing  Barton  v. 

Cunningham  v.  Somerville,  36  N.  W.  Rep.  Robins,  3  Phillim.  455,  note  (b). 
269  (Minn.).  *  Plume  v.  Beale,  1  P.  Wms.  388. 

*  Butler   r.    Butler,    5   Harring.   178;  ^  Ante,^Bi;  In  re  Welsh,  1  Redf.  238, 

Davis  V.  Sigourney,  8   Met.  (Mass.)  487  ;  248;   Burger  v.  Hill,  1  Bradf.  360,  376; 

Durfee   v.    Durfee,  8  Met.   (Mass.)   490,  Morris  u.  Stokes,  21  Ga.  552;  Harrison's 

note  •    Rhodes    v.   Vinson,   9    Gill,   169,  Appeal,  48  Conn.  202 ;  Florey  v.  Florey, 

171  24  Ala.  241,  248. 


§  222  WILLS   IN    PART   AND   IN    FAC   SIMILE.  485 

clause.^  So  where  a  clause  is  inadvertently  introduced  in  a  tes- 
tamentary paper,  which  the  testator  has  not  directed  to  be  in- 
serted, and  he  executes  the  paper,  not  having  been  read  over  to 
him,  probate  will  be  granted  of  the  remainder  of  the  paper,  omit- 
ting such  clause ;  ^  but  where  a  man's  mind  gives  way  in  the  very 
act  of  dictating  a  will,  before  completing  all  the  dis])ositions  he 
intends  to  make,  that  part  which  he  dictated  while  in  possession 
of  his  mental  faculties  cannot  be  set  up  as  his  will.-^  This  princi- 
ple has  been  extended  to  cases  in  which  part  of  a  destroyed  will 
only  could  be  proved,  and  probate  granted  as  to  so  much  of  such 
will  ;  *  and  relied  on  as  justifying  the  rejection  of  clauses  held 
void  as  being  inconsistent  with  public  policy,  or  impossible  of 
execution,  while  the  remainder  of  the  will  was  ad-  i.-ii,n.jio„  „f 
mitted  to  probate.'     But  this  seems  inconsistent  with  P'"''ate  courts 

1  _  extends  only 

the  functions  of  a  court  of  probate,  which  determines  t"  determine 

validilvof  exe- 

only  whether  the  instrument  propounded    has    been  cation  and 
executed  by  the  testator  and  attested  by  the  witnesses  testamentary 
in  the  manner  prescribed  by  the  statute,  and  that  he  *^^p''^'^-^- 
possessed    sufficient    testamentary    capacity,  —  in    other   words, 
Avhether  the  instrument  is  the  testator's  spontaneous  act,  express- 
ing his  last  will  in  the  form  recognized  by  law.     Its  Questions  of 
approval  of  the  will  relates  only  to  the  form:  void  dTJposAit'n 
bequests  are  not  validated  thereby,  nor  should  the  b^^/u*/,™of"^^ 
probate    distinguish  between  valid  and  void,  certain  construction. 
and  uncertain,  rational  or  impossible,  dispositions  of  the  testator.^ 
All  such  questions  are  for  the  courts  of   construction,  which  are 
bound  by  the  judgments  of  courts  of  probate  only  as  to  the  due 
execution."     Hence,  although  the    court  of   probate  may   reject 
such  portions  of  the  paper  as  are  not  the  testator's  spontaneous 
act  or  will,  it  cannot,  even  by  consent,  order  any  passage  to  be 

1  Wms.  [377],  citing  Allen  r.  McPlier-  constitutional  clause,  both  in  tlie  probate 
son,  1  H.  L.  Cas.  191  ;  Meluish  v.  Milton,  court  ex  parte,  and  in  the  circuit  court 
L.  R.  3  Ch.  D.  27.  in  a  proceeding  to   establish    the   clause 

2  Goods  of  Dunne,  2  Sw.  &  Tr.  590;  rejected. 

Hill  V.  Burger,  10  How.  Pr.  2H4,  2(50.  '-  Bent's  Appeal,  35  Conn.  523 ;  s.  c.  38 

3  Tabler  i'.  Tabler,  62  Md.  001,  007.         Conn.  26,  34 ;  George  v.  George,  47  N.  H. 

4  Ante,  §  221.  27,  40. 

6  Kenrick  v.  Cole,  61  Uo.  572.     The  "  Hegarty's  Appeal,  75  Pa.   St.  503, 

will  contained  a  clause  in  conflict   with  514,  citing  earlier  Pennsylvania  and  Eng- 

the  constitution  of  1865  (under  which  the  lish  cases  ;  Hawes  v.  Humphrey,  9  Pick, 

probate  was  granted)  and  was  admitted  350,  362. 
to  probate  with  the  exception  of  tiie  un- 


486  THE    PROBATE   OF   THE    WILL.  §  222 

expunged  which  the  testator,  being  of  sound  mind,  intended  to 
form  part  of  it.^ 

The  effect  of  interlineations  and  erasures  in  a  will  have  been 
pointed  out  in  an  earlier  chapter.^     Where  alterations  are  satis- 
factorily shown  to  have  been  made  before  execution,  it  is  usual 
to  engross  the  probate  copy  of  the  will  as  altered,  inserting  the 
words  interlined  in  their  proper  places,  and  omitting  words  struck 
through  or  obliterated.^     But  in  cases  where  the  construction  of 
Probate  in         the  wiU  may  be  affected  by  the   appearance  of  the 
fac  simile.         original  paper,  the  court  will  order  the  probate  to  pass 
in  fac  simile.,  so  as  to  assist  the  court  of  construction  in  finding 
the  meaning  of  the  testator.*     This  is  obviously  of  great  impor- 
tance where  the  will  is  to  receive  construction  in  a  court  different 
from  that  which  grants  the  probate,  and  the  court  of  construction 
is  denied  access  to  the  original  will.     The  law  seems  to  be  un- 
settled in  England,  whether  the  probate  copy  is  conclusive  upon 
courts  of  law  and  chancery  courts  if  it  should  contain  obvious 
mistakes.     It  has  been  repeatedly  held  that  the  court  construing 
the  will  may  look  at  the  original,^  and,  on  the  other  hand,  that 
the  probate,  in /tfc  simile  or  otherwise,  conclusively  settles  that  the 
will  was  executed  in  the  form  shown  by  the  probate.^     Mr.  Wil- 
liams is  of  opinion  that  it  may,  on  the  whole,  be  doubted  whether 
chancery  courts  in  England  have  not  gone  beyond  the  legitimate 

1  Wins.  [377],  citing  Curtis  v.  Curtis,      tion  that  they  are  applicable  to  two  sets 

3  Add.  33,  and  many  Englisli  authorities,  of  legatees.  In  such  case,  it  sliould  seem, 
But  tliough  the  court  cannot  expunge  there  must,  of  necessity,  be  a  fac  simile 
any  words  from  the  original  will,  offensive     probate. 

passages,  such  as  scurrilous  imputations  &  In  L'Fit  v.  L'Batt,  1  P.  Wms.  526, 

on  tlie  character  of  another  man,  have  a  will  was  proved  in  the  original  French 

been  excluded  from  the  probate  and  copy  language,  and  under  it,  in  the  same  pro- 

kei)t  in  tlie  registry  :  Goods  of  Wartnaby,  bate,  it  was  translated  into  English,  but,  It 

4  Notes  of  Cas.  476;  Marsh  v.  Marsh,  1  appeared,  falsely  translated.  The  Master 
Sw.  &  Tr.  528  ;  Goods  of  Hony  wood,  L  R.  of  the  Rolls  held  that  the  court  might  de- 
2  P.  &  D.  251.  termine  what  tlie  translation  ought  to  be. 

2  ^^rifp,  §  49.  In  Compton  v.  Bloxham,  2  Coll,  201,  the 

3  3  Re'df.  on  Wilis,  53,  pi.  2.  Vice-Chancellor  begged  to  haveit  observed 

4  Wras.  [381].  If,  for  example,  the  that  he  had  sent  for  and  examined  the 
testator  says,  "  I  give  A.  B.  an  annuity  original  will,  and  had  been  influenced  by 
of  £500,  and  I  also  give  him  .£1000";  it  m  his  construction.  So  in  Sliea  v, 
and  the  testator  tlien  strikes  out  down  to  Boschetti,  18  Beav.  321,  and  Manning  v. 
and  including  the  words  ".£500";  Gann  Purcell,  7  DeG.,  M.  &  G.  55,  the  original 
r.  Gregory,  3  DeG.,M.&G.  777, 780.  Sup-  wills  were  examined  for  the  purpose  of 
pose,  again,  the  words   "  to   be   equally  construction. 

divided  amongst  them"  interlined,  (with-  «  Gann  v.  Gregory,  supra;   Taylor  v. 

out  any  caret  to  show  where  they   were     Richardson,  2  Drew.  16. 
intended  to  come  in,)  and  in  such  a  posi- 


§  223  PROBATE   OF    HOLOGRAPHIC    WILLS.  487 

means  for  construing-  wills,  where  they  have  soiig'ht  aid  from  ap- 
pearances in  the  will  itself  nut  to  be  found  in  the  probate,  and 
whether  the  more  i)roper  course  is  not  to  apply  to  the  court  of 
l)robate  for  a  corrected  fac  simile  probate,  if  it  be  desired  to  relv 
on  stops,  or  capital  letters,  or  any  marks  which,  in  truth,  are 
apparent  in  the  will,  though  not  in  the  probate.  '^  For  until  Ihe 
court  of  probate  has  sanctioned  them  as  legal  ])arts  of  the  will, 
non  constat  that  they  have  not  been  introduced  by  a  stranger,  or 
by  the  testator  himself  after  the  will  was  executed,  or  otherwise, 
so  as  not  properly  to  form  a  part  of  it.  And  this  can  only  be 
decided  in  the  probate  court,  which  is  bound  to  exclude  from  its 
probate,  whether  a/ac  simile  probate  or  not,  all  such  appearances 
on  the  face  of  the  will  as  do  not  legitimately  belong  to  it  as  a 
testamentary  instrument."^ 

The  same  view  seems  applicable  in  the  American  States.  Mr, 
Schouler  says  :  "  To  construe  a  will  duly  probated,  and  define  the 
rights  of  parties  in  interest,  remains  for  other  tribunals  ;  they 
must  interpret  the  charter  by  wdiich  the  estate  should  be  settled 
in  case  of  controversy ;  while  the  probate  court,  by  right  purely 
of  probate  or  ecclesiastical  functions,  establishes  and  confirms 
that  charter.  But  in  order  to  do  this,  the  probate  court  throws 
out  the  false  or  the  superseded  will,  or  the  instrument  whose 
execution  does  not  accord  with  positive  statute  requirements ;  it 
determines  what  writing  or  writings  shall  constitute  the  will."  2 
Hence  a  decree  by  a  court  granting  probate  of  a  will,  that  it  is  null 
and  void  in  so  far  as  it  conHicts  with  the  legal,  constitutional,  and 
equitable  rights  of  the  widow,  can  have  no  legal  effect.^ 

§  223.  Probate  of  Holographic  Wills.  —  The  difference  between 
ordinary  wills,  requiring  attestation  by  subscribing  witnesses,  and 
holographic  wills,  is,  as  appears  from  the  discussion  of  this  sub- 
ject in  a  former  chapter,^  that  the  latter  are  valid,  if  written 
wholly  by  the  testator,  without  such  attestation.  It  was  there 
pointed  out  in  what  States  such  wills  are  admitted  to  probate,  and 
also  that  in  some  of  them  the  statutes  provide  for  the  method 
of  proof  by  which  they  must  be  established;  it  is  not  proper, 
therefore,  to  repeat  in  this  connection  the  statutory  requirements 
concerning  their  probate.^     It  is  necessary  to  bear  in  mind,  how- 

^   Wins.  Ex.  [569].  °  See  also  the  cases  there  cited,  passing 

2  Sfhoiil.  Ex.  §  85.  upon  some  of  the  principles  and  proced- 

3  O'Docherty  v.  McGloinn,  25  Tex.  67.  ure  involved. 
*  Ante,  §  43. 


488  THE    PROBATE   OF   THE    WILL.  §  223 

Proof  neces-      Gver,  that  proof  must  be  made  that  the  whole  of  the 
.<arvt()es-         instrumciit  was  written  bv  the  hand  of  the  testator 

tablish  a  ^  ? 

holograph.  and  generally,  also,  that  he  dated  and  signed  it.^  In 
Kentucky  it  was  decided  that  a  pajjcr  wholly  written  and  sub- 
scribed by  a  person,  with  the  intention  of  making  it  his  will, 
is  valid  as  a  will,  although  he  may  not  have  thought  it  a  com- 
pleted paper  by  reason  of  a  mistaken  notion  on  his  part  that  the 
law  required  witnesses  to  such  a  paper.^  Proof  should  be  made 
in  strict  accordance  with  the  rules  prescribed  by  the  statute.^  In 
some  States  the  handwriting  must  be  proved  by  three  witnesses;* 
in  others  by  two;^  and  in  Kentucky  it  was  held  that  proof  of  hand- 
writing by  one  witness,  together  with  proof  of  declarations  by  the 
testator  in  corroboration  thereof,  was  sufficient  to  establish  a  holo- 
graph.^ In  Virginia  it  was  doubted  whether  one  or  two  witnesses 
are  necessary^  In  England  the  rule  laid  down,  before  the  Wills 
Act  of  1838,  in  respect  of  wills  of  personalty,  allowed  them  to  be 
established  upon  sufficient  proof  that  the  will,  or  signature,  was  in 
the  handwriting  of  the  testator.^  Under  this  rule,  it  was  held  to 
be  clearly  established  in  the  ecclesiastical  courts,  that  similitude 
of  handwriting,  even  with  a  probable  disposition,  is  not  sufficient 
to  establish  a  testamentary  paper,  without  some  concomitant  cir- 
cumstances, as  the  place  of  finding,  or  the  like,  to  connect  it 
with  the  party  whose  will  it  is  alleged  to  be.^  The  same  doc- 
trine seems  to  be  applicable  to  the  proof  of  the  liandwriting  in 
a  hologra[)hic  will,  where  the  statute  does  not  control  it.  Dec- 
larations by  the  testator  are  generally  admissible  in  connection 

1  It   was    held    in    California    that   a  proof,  although  previously  admitted  im- 
printed form,  filled  in  by  the  testator,  is  properly  :  Succession  of  Clark,  supra. 
not  a  holographic  will.     Ante,  §  4-3,  citing  *  As  in  Arkansas,  North  Carolina,  and 
Estate  of  Rand,  61  Cal.  468.     In  Tennes-  Tennessee. 

see  a  will   written  by  the  testator's  own  °  As  in  Louisiana:  "  Who  are  familiar 

hand,  although   not   signed  by  him   nor  with  his  handwriting,  having  often  seen 

attested  by  witnesses,  is  good  as  to  per-  him   write  in  his  lifetime":    Succession 

sonalty,  provided  the  handwriting  be  suf-  of  Eubanks,  supra.     But  this  rule  applies 

ticiently  proved  :    Suggett  v.  Kitchell,   6  only  where  the  probate  is  not  contested  ; 

Ycrg.  429;   Reagan  v.  Stanley,  11  Lea,  where   it   is   contested  ah  initio,   on   the 

316.  ground   that   the  will   is  a   forgery,  the 

-  Toebbe    v.    Williams,   80   Ky.    GSl,  ordinary  rules  of  law  apply  :  Succession 

664.  of  Gaines,  38  La.  An.  123. 

3  Succession  of  Clark,  11  La.  An  124.  6  Ilaimah  v.  Peak,  2  A.  K.  Marsh.  133. 

In  this  State  women  cannot  be  subscrib-  ''  Redford  v.  Peggy,  6  Rand.  316. 

ing  witnesses  to  a  will,  but  are  competent  8  Sharp  i".  Sharp,  2  Leigh,  249,  254. 

to  establisli  a  holograph  •   Succession  of         ^  Wms.    Ex.    [350],    citing    numerous 

Eubanks,  9  La.  An.  147  ;  and  such  a  will  English  cases. 
may  be  admitted  to  probate  upon  proper 


§  224  PROOF    OF    NUNCUPATIVE  WILLS.  489 

with  such  evidence,^  but  are  not  alone  sufficient  to  establish  I  lie 
will. 2 

§  224.    Proof  of  Nuncupative  'Wiila.  —  The  method  of   proviu'' 
nuncupative  wills  has  been  extensively  discussed   in  connection 
with  the  statutory  regulations  affecting  this  species  of  strict  proof 
testamentary  disposition.^     In  consequence  of  the  dis-  "^'^,';7rif  ^° 
favor  with  which  this  class  of  wills  is  looked  upon  by  »;"i)ative  wills, 
the  courts,*  it  is  necessary  to  observe  the  utmost  strictness  in  ful- 
filling the  statutory  requirements  with  reference  to  them,  and 
to  prove  the  testamentary  capacity  and  animus  teHtandl  by  the 
clearest  evidence ;  any  deviation  therefrom  will,  according  to  the 
unvarvinii'  current   of  authorities,   prove  fatal.^     The 

I      *  1-  1  -11     •       1  1       •        r  1    I''<''"'>te  of  a 

probate  ot  such  a  will  is,  however,  conclusive,''  and  nunciiiiation 
cannot,  in  some  States,  be  set  aside  or  contested  in 
chancery,  like  a  written  will,  the  only  remedy  of  a  party  aggrieved 
being  by  appeal;"  but  a  contest  being,  in  some  States,  in  the 
nature  of  an  appeal  from  the  judgment  of  the  probate  court,  ev- 
ery fact  which  is  required  to  be  proved  in  order  to  admit  the 
will  to  probate  may  be  disproved  on  the  contest  to  show  it  to  be 
invalid.** 

§  225.    Admissibility  of   Declarations   as  Evidence   in  the  Probate 
of   Wills.  —  The  conversations,    statements,  and  declarations   of 
the  testator  are  always  admissible  on  the  question  of  Testator's  dec- 
his  testamentary  capacity,  since  they  are  the  most  di-  Jili^Jib|"e^o^' 
rect   manifestations    of    his    mental   condition ;   their  P'"\e  ."'^ 

'  condition  of 

value  as  evidence  being,  in  this  respect,  fully  equal,  if  '»« '"'"d; 
not  superior,  to  that  of  his  acts,  conduct,  behavior,  or  appearance. 
Many  phases  of  insanity  —  delusions,  hallucinations,  and  the  like  — 

1  But  declarations  that  he  made  a  Winn  v.  Bob,  3  Leigh.  140  ;  Prince  v. 
subsequent  will,  in  the  absence  of  all  tes-  Hazieton,  20  Johns.  502;  Tally  r.  But- 
tiniony  of  the  contents,  execution,  attes-  terworth,  10  Yerg.  501  ;  BrayfieUi  r. 
tntioii  or  handwriting  of  sue!)  subsequent  Bra.vfield,  3  Har.  &  J.  208;  Webb  r. 
will,  cannot  be  introduced  as  proof  of  Webb,  7  T.  B.  Mon.  026,  ():U  ;  Rankin  r. 
ih,'  revocation  of  a  holographic  will  of-  Kankin,  9  Ired.  L.  156  ;  vSt.  James  Cimrcli 
fired  for  probate  :  Allen  v.  Jeter,  6  Lea,  v.  Walker,  1  Del.  Ch.  284;  Succession  of 
^i"^.  675.  Dorries,   37  La.  An.  833.     In   lo  va  the 

2  Succession  of  Eubanks,  supra.  mi'imns  testandi  was  interred  from  the  tes- 
8  .^/(/p,  §§  44,  4-5.  tiitor's  expression  of  his  desire  :  Mulligan 
*  Woods  (;.  Kidley,  27  Miss.  110,  146;     v.  Leonard,  46  Iowa,  6!>2. 

deciding,  however,   that    when    properly  6  Bradley    r.    Amiress,    27    Ala.   596; 

proved  th^'y  are  equally  entitled  to  pro-  Brown  r.  Harris,  9  Baxt.  386. 
bate  wiih  written  wills.  "  Page  v.  Page,  2  Hob.  Va.  424. 

^  Broach   r.   Sing,  57  Miss.  115,  116;  »  Bolles  v.  Harris,  31  Oh.  St.  38,  41. 

Dorsey  v.  Sheppard,  12  Gill  &  J.  192,  198; 


490  THE   PliOBATE    OF    THE   WILL.  §  225 

are  capable  of  proof  by  this  means  only.  Hence  great  latitude  is 
allowed  in  proving  declarations,  acts,  and  statements  of  a  testator, 
extending  over  many  years,  to  establish  the  status  of  his  mind 
but  iH,t  to  wlien  he  made  his  will.^     Of  course  the  declarations 

jMove  thecou-    g^^.^  j^^jj-  competent  to  prove  the  truth  of  the  matter 

tent  of  lus  1  '■ 

stiitemeuts.  stated  iu  them,  and  when  the  content  of  a  statement 
or  declaration  concerns  a  fact  in  issue  in  the  proceeding,  the  jury 
should  be  cautioned  on  this  point.-  On  an  imputation  of  fraud, 
also,  in  the  making  of  the  will,  declarations  of  the  testator  are 
admissible  in  evidence  to  show  his  dislike  or  affection  for  his  rela- 
tions, or  those  who  in  the  will  appear  to  be  the  objects  of  his 
bounty,  and  respecting  his  intentions  either  to  benefit  them  or  to 
pass  them  by  in  the  disposition  of  his  property .^  But  such  decla- 
rations, alone  and  unsupported  by  other  facts,  are  not  only  insuffi- 
cient to  prove  undue  influence,  but  their  exclusion,  in  the  absence 
of  other  evidence,  is  not  erroneous.*  Nor  should  declarations 
made  so  long  before  or  after  the  making  of  the  will  that  they 
Deciaiaiioiis  caunot  be  considered  as  of  the  res  gestce,  be  admitted 
inadmissible       ^    prove  the  fact  of  fraud,  circumvention,  or  imposi- 

to  prove  revo-       >^^  i     ^  j  ■>  l 

cation  of  awiii.  tiou.^     The  revocation  of  a  will  cannot  be  proved  by 

1  "  To  enable  the  jury  to  determine  ^  Wms.  Ex.  [359],  citing  Shallcross  v. 
the  real  state  of  mind,  the  action  of  that  Palmer,  16  Ad.  &  El.  (Q.  B.)  747,  759; 
mind,  as  siiown  best  by  conversations,  Allen  v.  Allen,  12  Ad.  &  El.  451 ;  Howell 
declarations,  claims,  and  acts,  is  the  most  v.  Barden,  .3  Dev.  442;  Neel  v.  Potter,  40 
satisfactory  evidence  "  :  Kent,  J,  in  Rob-  Pa.  St.  483  ;  Denison's  Appeal,  29  Conn, 
inson  v.  Adams,  02  Me.  369,  413.  Ram-  399,  402  ;  Potter  v.  Baldwin,  183  Mass. 
bier  V.  Tryon,  7  Serg.  &  R.  90,  93,  al-  427,  citing  earlier  Massachusetts  cases  ; 
lowing  declarations  tiiat  his  wife  and  Dye  w.  Young,  55  Iowa,  433;  Reynolds 
father-in-law  plagued  him,  wanting  him  ;;.  Adams,  90  111.  134,  147  ;  Parsons  v. 
to  give  her  all,  or  he  would  liave  no  rest,  Parsons,  56  Iowa,  754. 

as  showing  weakness  of  mind;  Roberts  *  Cawihorne  v.  Haynes,  24  Mo.  236, 
V.  Trawick,  13  Ala.  68,  83  ;  Barker  v.  239  ;  Rusling  v.  Rusling,  36  N.  J.  Eq.  003, 
Barker,  36  N.  J.  Eq.  259,  268,  holding  a  608;  Shaw  v.  Shaw,  1  Dem.  21,  24;  Kit- 
denial  by  the  testatrix  that  she  made  a  chell  i-.  Heach,  35  N.  J.  Eq.  446,  454 ; 
will  competent  to  prove  want  of  testa-  Storer's  Will,  28  Minn.  9,  12  ;  Wurzell  v. 
mentary  capacity,  and  that  the  will  was  Beckman,  52  Mich.  478. 
never  executed,  but  not  that  there  was  ^  Smith  v.  Fenner,  1  Gall.  170,  172; 
undue  influence.  See  remarks  of  Surro-  Stevens  (•.  Vancleve,  4  Wash.  C.  C.  262, 
gate  Rollins  in  Hamersley  v.  Lockman,  265;  Shailer  v.  Bumstead,  99  Mass.  112, 
2  Dem.  524,  533;  Matter  of  Clark,  40  121,  holding  that  the  value  of  such  evi- 
Hun,  233,  238.  dence  depends  upon  its  significance  and 

2  Robinson  v.  Adams,  supra ;  Boylan  proximity  ;  Shields  c.  Ingram,  5  Redf. 
«.  Meeker,  28  N.  J.  L.  274,  279 ;  Harring  346,  holding  proof  of  a  conversation 
V.  Allen,  25  Mich.  505  ;  Jones  v.  McLel-  eigliteen  years  before  to  be  unreliable  ; 
Ian.  76  Me.  49;  Bush  v.  Bush,  87  Mo.  480,  Rule  r.  Maupin,  84  Mo.  587,  590;  Crocker 
485.  V.  Chase,  57  Vt.  413. 


§  226  DECLARATIONS   AS   EVIDENCE.  491 

the  declarations  of  the  testut(n' ;  *  hut  liis  expressions  of  ajjpnn-al 
or  dissatisfaction  have  heen  held  admissible  as  bearing  ii|)()n  his 
intention  in  destroying  the  will,  or  proving  that  a  lost  will  is  not 
revoked.2     Diaries  kept  and  letters  written  bv  a  testa-  ,^.   . 

.  p     1     '      -ii  iJianes  and 

tor,  either  before  or  after  the  execution  oi  the  will,  are,  lutters  subject 
like  his  verbal  declarations,  proper  evidence  as  bearing 
upon  his  mental  capacity,  and  the  condition  of  his  mind  with  refer- 
ence to  objects  of  his  bounty,  but  not  competent  to  prove  the  facts 
stated  in  them,  or  fraud  or  undue  influence.^  It  has  been  held 
that  the  testator's  declarations  are  competent  to  prove  the  fact  of 
sul)Scription  by  the  attesting  witnesses  where  one  of  them  denies 
or  fails  to  remember  such  fact,  on  the  ground  that  the  testator 
must  certainly  know  about  his  own  acts,  and  has  no  motive  to 
speak  falsely  ;*  and  in  North  Carolina  the  declarations  of  a  testa- 
tor at  any  time  after  the  making  of  the  will  were  held  com[)etcnt 
to  prove  that  the  will  in  question  is  not  his  will.'^ 

§  226.   Wills   proved  in    a  Foreign  Jurisdiction.  —  The  principle 
r(!(iuiring  the  title  and  disposition  of  real  property  to  be  governed 
exclusively  by  the  law  of  the  country  or  State  in  which  it  is  situ- 
ated,—Zea;  loci  rei  Slice, ^  —  and  that  requiring  personal  property 
to  follow  the  law  of  the  owner's  domicil,  —  lex  domicilii,^  —  to- 
gether with  the  extra-territorial  invalidity  of  municipal  laws  and 
regulations,^  have  heretofore  produced  considerable  divergence  in 
respect  of  wills  which  have  been  executed  and  admitted  to  jtrobate 
in  sister  States  or  foreign  countries,  and  operate  upon  i)roperty 
situated  within  the  jurisdiction  of  the  forum  where  they  are  sought 
to  be  enforced.     It  is  now  a  fully  established  rule  in  En-iish  mie 
England,  that,  in  order  to  sue  in  any  court  of  law  or  bat'eof'wins  " 
equity,  in  respect  of  the  personal  rights  or  property  of  °,5  J;lri~s'l'!^','|,^u 
a  deceased  person,  the  plaintiff  must  appear  to  have  "^ '''"  *'^"""- 

1  Jackson    v.   Kniffen,   2    Jolins.    31  ;  witnesses,  was  doubted   in    New   York : 

Reynolds    v.    Adams,    90    111.    134,    147  ;  Beekman  v.  Beekinaii,  2  Dcm.  G:]5,  tWQ. 
Ho'itt  r.  Hoitt,  63  N.  H.  475,  4U9  ;  Slaugli-  *  Beadles  v.  Alexander,  9  Baxt.  604. 

ter  V.  Stephens,  81  Ala.  418.  ^  Reel  v.   Reel,   1    Hawks,    248,    267  ; 

■^  Matter  of  xMarsh,  45  Hun,  107:  Har-  Hester    v.    Hester,   4   Dev.   228  (in    this 

ring  V.  Allen,  25  Midi.   505,  507  ;  John-  case  objection  was  made  to  the  compe- 

son's  Will,  40  Conn.  5S7 ;  nnle,  §  221.  tency  of  a  widow  testifying  to  the  decla- 

3  Marx  V.  McGlynn,  88  N.  Y.  .357,  374.  rations  of  her  busband,  and  overruled; 

Wiietlier  a  memorandum  by  tbe  testator  nothing  was  said  as  to  the  competency 

is  admissible,   to  tbe  effect  that  be  bad  of  the  declarations  as  sucb). 
on    that    (biy     "  made    a   will    in    favor  ^  Story,  Confl.  L.  §  424. 

of  "  the   beneficiary  under  the  will  pro-  '  Ibid.,  §  376.     See  ante,  §  157  el  seq. 

pounded,    and  adding  the  name  of   the  8  Ante,  §  157  et  seq. 


492  THE    PROBATE   OF   THE    WILL.  §  226 

obtained  probate  of  the  will,  or  letters  of  administration  in  the 
court  of  probate  there  ;  ^  and  this  is  so  in  America  in 
Aniericaa  all  the  States  with  the  exception  of  those  in  which 

btates.  |.|jg  statutes  confer  certain  powers  upon  foreign  ex- 

ecutors and  administrators,  which  may  be  exercised  by  virtue 
of  such  statutory  regulations,^  or  give  validity  to  a  foreign  pro- 
bate.^ It  follows  that  a  will  made  in  another  State  or  foreign 
country,  and  proved  there,  disposing  of  property  elsewhere,  must, 
except  in  the  States  holding  as  above,  be  proved  in  the  State  where 
the  property  is  situated  also,  or  courts  cannot  enforce  the  provis- 
ions of  such  will.* 

Generally,  the  court  in  which  the  will  is  to  be  proved  anew 
will  adopt  the  decision  of  the  court  in  the  foreign  country  where 
Probate  of  the  tcstator  died  domiciled  as  to  the  probate  of  a 
trvonhe"""  ^^^^  disposiug  of  personal  property  ;  for  it  is  a  clearly 
doniKii  fni-        established  rule,  that  the  law  of  the  countrv  in  which 

lowed  as  to  ' 

personalty.  the  dcccascd  was  domiciled  at  the  time  of  his  death 
not  only  decides  the  ccnirse  of  distribution  or  succession  as  to 
personalty,  but  regulates  the  decision  as  to  what  constitutes 
the  last  will,  without  regard  to  the  place  either  of  birth  or 
death,  or  the  situation  of  the  property  at  that  time.^  It  is  pro- 
.  .      vided  by  statute,  that  the  will  of  a  non-resident,  ad- 

Statutes  givinj?        .  .  . 

effect  to  foreign  mittcd  to  probate  according  to  the  law  of  the  State  in 
which  he  resided  at  the  time  of  his  death,  may  be  ad- 
mitted to  probate  upon  the  production  of  a  duly  authenticated 
copy  thereof  together  with   the  probate,  without  other  proof  or 


1  Wms.  Ex.  [362],  wliere  the  author  22;  Campbell  v.  Wallace,  10  Gray,  162 
quotes  a  note  to  the  American  edition  of  Drake  v.  Merrill,  2  Jones,  L.  368,  373; 
his  work,  stating  "tliat  it  has  been  estab-  Kx  parte  Povall,  3  Leijih,  81B  ;  Dixon  v. 
lished  as  a  rule,  by  repeated  decisions  in  D'Arinond,  23  La.  An.  200 ;  Pope  i\  Cut- 
many  of  the  States,  that  the  executor  or  ler,  34  Mich.  150,  162  ;  Townsend  t\ 
administrator  of  a  person  who  dies  dom-  Downer,  32  Vt.  183,  216;  Ward  r.  Gates, 
ieiled  in  Great  Britain,  or  any  other  for-  43  Ala.  515;  Thiebaut  v.  Sebastian,  10 
eign  country,  cannot  maintain  an  action  Ind.  454,  458  ;  Helm  v.  Rookesby,  1 
in  the  United  States,  by  virtue  of  let-  Met.  (Ky.)  49;  Ives  i:  Allyn,  12  Vt.  589, 
ters  testamentary  or  of  administration  504  ;  Armstrong  v.  Lear,  12  Wheat.  169, 
granted  to  him  in  the  country  where  tiie  175. 
deceased  died."  ^  Wms.  Ex.  [366]  ;  Wood  v.  Wood,  5 

^  Mansfield    v.   Turpin,   32   Ga.    260;  Pai  506,603;  Moultrie  r.  Hunt,  23  N.  Y. 

Karrick  r.  Pratt,  4  Greene  (Iowa),  144.  394.    See  list  of  American  cases  collected 

3  As  to   which  see   infra,  and  p.  494,  by  Bigelow  in  his  note  to  the  eighth  edi- 
note  3  pfsffj.  tion  of  Story's  Conflict  of  Laws,  p.  644, 

4  Campbell   v.    Sheldon,   13   Pick.    8,  note  (a). 


§2::C 


WILLS    PROVED    IN    A    FOREIGN   JURISDICTION. 


493 


notice,  in  the  States  of  Alabama,^  Arkansas,^  Colorado,"'  Florida,'* 
Georgia,^  Illinois,^  Indiana,^  lowa,^  Michigan,^  Missouri,^'^'  New 
York,^i  North  Caroliiia,^^  Oregon,'^  reiinsylvaiiia,'^  South  Caro- 
lina,^°  Texas,^*^  and  Virginia  ;^^  and,  with  the  difference  that  notice 
is  required  to  be  given  to  persons  interested,  likewise  in  Califor- 
nia,^^ Maine,^^  Massachnsetts,^^*  Minnesota,-^  Nebraska,^^  Nevada,''^-^ 
New  Jersey ,2"*  Ohio,-^  Rhode  Island,-'^  Tennessee,-''  Vermont,''^^  and 
Wisconsin.^^  In  many  of  these  States  it  is  affirma- 
tively provided,  that  the  foreign  probate  is  conclusive 
only  in  so  far  as  the  will  concerns  personal  property ;  with  tiie  Taw 
to  pass  title  to  real  estate,  it  must  appear,  either  by 
proof  furnished  in  the  forum  loci  rei  sitce,  or  by  the  authenticated 
copy  of  the  evidence  upon  which  the  foreign  probate  was  granted, 
that  in  the  execution,  attestation,  and  proof  of  the  will  the  re- 
quirements of  the  law  of  the  State  in  which  the  land  lies  have 
been  complied  with.'^*^     In  some  of  the  States  the  for-  states  in  which 

,  ,  ,       .  .  ,  forei^'u  ])iobate 

eign  probate  seems  to  be  made  conchisive  as  to  real  as  is  concUisive. 


Even  as  to 
realty,  if  in 
coiifoiniitv 


1  Dickey  v.  Vann,  81  Ala.  42.5,  432; 
Ward  V.  Gates,  43  Ala.  515,  517  ;  Code, 
1886,  §  1985.  Such  will  cannot  be  con- 
tested :  Brock  v.  Frank,  51  Ala.  85. 

2  Dig.  1884,  §  6513. 

3  Gen.  St.  1883,  §  3507. 

*  Laws,  1881,  p.  U87,  §§  8,  14. 

5  Code,  1882,  §  2133,  2434  a.  In  a  re- 
cent case  it  was  held  tliat  the  probate  of 
a  will  in  a  foreign  jurisdiction  is  conclu- 
sive, where  the  will  was  contested  by  all 
the  heirs :  Thomas  v.  Morrisett,  76  Ga. 
381  (Jackson,  C.  J.,  dissenting). 

6  Rev.  St.  1885,  p.  2471,  §§9,  10. 

■?  Rev.  St.  1881,  §§  2591-2.593.  In  this 
State  a  will  so  filed  and  recorded  cannot 
be  set  aside  or  contested  for  any  cause  : 
Harris  v.  Harris,  61  Ind.  117,  124. 

8  Stanley  v.  Morse,  26  Iowa,  454,  hold- 
ing that  the  certificate  of  the  prol)ate  of 
such  will  is  conclusive  ;  Vance  v.  Ander- 
son, 39  Iowa,  426. 

»   Howell's  An.  St.  §  hSOo  Pt  nfiq. 

w  Rev.  St.  §  3993  ;  Applegate  v.  Sniitli, 
31  Mo.  166,  169. 

11  Throop's  Code  Civil  Proc.  1887, 
§§  2703-2705. 

12  Code,  1883,  §§  2156,  21-57. 

13  Code,  1887,  §  308-3. 

1*  Bright.  Purd.  Dig.  188-3,  p.  507,  §  7. 
15  Gen.  St.  1881,  §  1751. 


16  Rev.  St.  1888,  §  1856. 
1"  Code,  1887,  §  2-536. 

18  Code  Civ.  Pr.  §  1324. 

19  Rev.  St.  1883,  p.  5.38,  §  13;  Crofton 
V.  Ilsley,  4  Me.  134,  138  ;  Spring  v.  Park- 
man,  12  Me.  127,  l.,l. 

20  Pub.  St.  1882,  p.  749,  §  15;  Dublin 
V.  Chadbourn,  16  Mass.  433,  441  ;  Parker 
r.  Parker,  11  Cush.  519.  Tlie  probate  in  a 
foreign  State  is  conclusive  althougli  no 
notice  was  there  given  :  Crippen  v.  Dex- 
ter, 13  Gray,  330  ;  Shannon  v.  Shannon, 
111  Mass.  331. 

21  St.  1878,  p.  569,  §  18. 

22  Comp.  St.  1887,  ch.  23,  §  144. 

23  Comp.  L.  1873,  p.  506. 

2'*  Laws,  1877,  p.  757,  §  23.  An  exem- 
plified copy  of  the  foreign  will  and  of  its 
probate  is  not  competent  evidence,  it  must 
be  regularly  proved  and  recorded  in  this 
State :  Graham  i:  Whitely,  26  N.  J.  L.  254, 
258  ;  see  Allaire  v.  Allaire.  37  N.  J.  L.  312. 

25  Rev.  St.  1880,  §§  5938-5940. 

2'''  Pub.  St.  1882,  p.  474,  §§  6-9. 

2-  Code,  1884,  §  3024 

28  Rev.  L.  1880,  §§2058-2060;  Ives  v. 
Salisbury,  56  Vt.  565. 

29  Gary  Pr.  L.  §  224. 

3''  So  in  Arkansas,  Kentucky,  Missouri, 
North  Carolina,  Oregon,  Rhode  Island, 
Tennessee,  and  Virginia. 


494  THE    PROBATE   OF   THE   WILL.  §  226 

well  as  to  personal  property ;  ^  but  unless  such  be  the  express 
or  nccessarv  import  of  tlie  statute,  it  must  affirmatively  ap[)car 
from  such  foreign  probate,  or  otbcr  proof,  that  the  law  of  the 
forum  has  been  observed  in  making  and  proving  the  will  in 
order  to  give  validity  to  its  disposition  of  real  estate.^  There  are 
States  Kivincc  &ome  States,  also,  in  which  the  probate  of  the  foreign 
effect  to  foreign  uu'isdiction,  dulv  authenticated,  either  according  to 

probate  witliout   J  ^  J  '  ^  c 

probate  anew,  the  act  of  Congress,  or  in  accordance  with  the  regu- 
lations prescribed  in  the  statutes  of  such  States,  are  allowed  to  be 
given  in  evidence  without  probate  anew,  or  previous  ap])roval  by 
the  probate  court  of  the  loci  rei  sitce ;  ^  it  is  so  provided  by  stat- 
ute in  Florida,*  Georgia,^  Illinois,^  and  in  some  other  States  the 
statute  seems  to  provide  only  for  a  recording  of  the  foreign  will.' 
The  authentication  of  the  probate,  and  certificate  that  such  au- 
thentication is  in  due  form  of  law  in  the  State  grnnting  it,  in  the 
manner  prescribed  by  the  act  of  Congress  for  the  authentication 
of  records,  is  sufficient  to  entitle  such  will  to  admission  in  the 
courts  of  sister  States  without  proof  of  the  statute  giving  jurisdic- 
tion to  the  foreign  court.^ 

There  is  some  deviation,  also,  on  the  validity  of  wills  executed 

1  So  in  Connecticut:  Irwin's  Appeal,  Neilson,  13  Lea.  461,  4G6 ;  Lewis  v.  City 

33  Conn.   128,  140  ;  Illinois  :  Gardner  v.  of  St.  Louis,  6'.)  Mo.  595,  affirmed  in  Brad- 

Ladue,  47  111.  211;  Wisconsin:  Hayes  v.  street  v.  Kinsella,  76  Mo.  03.  66;  Gaines 

Lieniokken,  48  Wis.  509,  511  ;  Michigan  :  v.  Fender,  82  Mo.  497,  £05,  and  Drake  v. 

Wilt  i:  Cutler,  38  Mich.  189,  196.  Curtis,  88  Mo.  644. 

^  Varner  v.  Bevil,   17  Ala.   286;    St.  *  Laws,  1881,  p.  988,  §  14.     But  unless 

James  Church  v.  Walker,  1  Del.  Ch.  284 ;  the  execution  of  the  will  conforms  to  the 

Kichards  v.  Miller,  62  111.  417 ;  Sneed  v.  law  of  Florida,  it  is  not  sufficient  to  pass 

Ewing,  5  J.  J.  Marsh.  460,  465  ;  Crusoe  v.  real  estate  :  CroUy  v.  Clark,  20  Fla.  849. 
Butler,  36    Mississippi,    150 ;    Davison's  ^  Code,  1882,  §  24.33. 

Will,  1  Tuck.  479  ;  Hynian  i-.  Gaskins,  5  «  st.  &  C.  Kev.  St.  1885,  p.  2471,  §  9. 

Ired.  L.  267  ;  Holman  ;•.  Hopkins,  27  Tex.  '  In  Missouri  such  a  statute  was  held 

38;   McCormick  r.  SuUivant,  10  Wheat,  to   authorize   a    will   proved   in   anotiier 

192 ;  Fennel  v.  Weyant,  2  Harr.  501,  506 ;  State,  in  accordance  with  the  law  of  Mis- 

Bud'd /•.  Brooke,  3  Gill,  198,  232;  Barstow  souri,  an   authenticated   copy    of    which 

V.  Spracuc,  40  N.  H.  27,  31 ;  Goodman  v.  was  recorded  in  the  proper  (  ounty  of  the 

Winter^  64   Ala.    410,  428;    Williams  i:  latter  Stnte,  to  be  competent  evidence  of 

Jones    14  Bush,  418;  Smith  v.  Neilson,  title:    Applegate  v.  Smith,   31   Mo.  166, 

13  Lea,  461,  466.  169  ;   Bright  v.  White,  8  Mo.  421,  426  ; 

a  Harris' u.  Anderson,  9  Humph.  779 ;  Haile    v.   Hill,  13   Mo.  612,  618.     So   in 

Lancaster   v.  McBryde,  5   Ired.  L.  421,  other  States :  Bromley  v.  Miller,  2  Tli.  & 

42.3,  citing  Helme  v.  Sanders,  3  Hawks,  C.  575  ;  Carpenter  r.  Denoon,  29  Oh.  St. 

563  (hut  compare  on  this  point  the  later  379,  .395. 

case   of   Drake    ".  Merrill,  supra,  which  ^  Puryear  r.  Beard,  14  Ala.  121,  128; 

seems    to   overrule  the  last  two  cas'-s);  Robertson  v.  Bnrhour,  6  T.  B.  Mon.  52-3, 

Shephardy.Curriel,  19111.  31.3,  319;  New-  528;  Wilt  i-.  Cutler,  38  Mich.  189,  198; 

man  v.  Willetts,  52  III.  98,  104 ;  Smith  v.  and  see  cases,  supra,  note  3. 


§  226 


WILLS    PROVED    IN    A    FOREIGN   JURISDICTION. 


495 


in  a  State  or  country,  according  to  the  requirements  thereof,  in 
which  the  testator  was  not  domiciled  at  the  time  of  his  p,.„i,.,,^  .^f^^.j!] 
death,  as  to  personal  ])ronerty  situated  in  the  State  of  exi^i^^i't^^'i '"  --^ 

'  ^  I        I         J  ^  country  wliere 

his  domicil,  or  some  otiicr  country.    Thus,  a  will  made  the  testator  was 

not  domiciled. 

in  Massachusetts  by  an  inhabitant  thereoi  must  be 
proved  according  to  the  law  of  Massachusetts,  no  matter  where  it 
receives  original  probate  ;  ^  and  a  will  is  admissible  to  original 
probate  in  the  jurisdiction  of  the  testator's  domicil  at  the  time  of 
his  death,  without  regard  to  where  he  died  or  where  tiie  will  was 
made.'-^  While  a  foreign  will  may  be  admitted  to  probate  upon 
proper  proof,  although  it  has  not  been  proved  or  recorded  in  the 
testator's  domicil,*^  and  although  it  has  been  declared  void  in  other 
States,'*  the  probate  of  a  court  which  is  without  jurisdiction  be- 
cause the  testator  may  have  resided,  but  was  not  domiciled,  in  the 
State,  is  void,  and  cannot  support  a  probate  in  the  State  of  the 
domicil.^  And  it  has  been  held  that  the  proof  must  be  in  accord- 
ance with  the  law  of  the  domicil  at  the  time  of  death,  altliough 
the  statute  provides  that  property  may  be  bequeathed  if  the  will 
be  executed  and  proved  "according  to  the  laws  of  this  State,  or  of 
the  country,  State,  or  Territory  in  which  the  will  shall  be  made."° 


1  Pub.  St.  1882,  p.  749.  So  in  New 
Jersey  ;  Wallace  v.  Wallace,  3  N.  J.  Eq 
61(3;  Mississippi.  Bate  r.  Incisa,  59  Miss. 
513,  517,  citing  numerous  Mississippi 
cases. 

2  Converse  v.  Starr,  23  Oh.  St.  491. 

3  Varner  r.  Bevil,  17  Ala.  286;  Hyman 
V.  Gaskins,  5  Ired.  L.  207  ;  Jaques  v.  Hor- 
ton,  76  Ala.  238;  Booth  v.  Timoi.ey,  3 
Dem.  41G. 

*  Rice  ('.  Jones,  4  Call,  89. 

5  Stark  V.  Parker,  56  N.  H.  481,  485; 
Desesbats  v.  Berquier,  1  Binn.  336  (in 
which  Yeates,  J.,  p.  347,  cites  Vattel, 
154,  §  85;  2  Huberus,  lib.  1,  tit.  3;  2 
Wolfe,  201;  Denizart,  515;  Target,  and 
Lord  Kaimcs,  as  severall\'  asserting  that 
tlie  validity  of  a  testament  as  to  its  form 
can  oidy  be  decided  by  the  judge  of  the 
domicil,  whose  sentence  delivered  \n  form 
ought  to  be  everywhere  acknowledged)  ; 
Caulfield  r.  Sullivan,  85  N.  Y.  153,^159; 
Manuel  v.  Manuel,  13  Oil.  St.  458,  463, 
citing  numerous  authorities ;  Morris  r. 
Morris,  27  Miss.  847 ;  Moultrie  v.  Hunt, 
23  N.  Y.  394  ;  Grattan  v.  Appleton,  3 
Story,  755,  764  ;  Dupuy  v.  Wurz,  53  N.  Y. 


556,  560;  and  the  rule  is  the  same  if 
the  testator,  having  made  a  will  in  ac- 
cordance with  the  law  of  his  domicil, 
subsequently  changes  his  residence  and 
acquires  a  new  domicil  in  another  State, 
—  the  will  becomes  void,  unless  it  con- 
form to  the  law  of  his  /nr.f  dotincil  .  Story, 
Confl.  L.  §  473  :  Schoul.  Ex.  §  17;  1  Hedf. 
Wills,  p.  401,  pi.  12. 

Mr.  Wharton,  mentioning  the  English 
statute  of  24  &  25  Vict.  c.  107,  providing 
that  a  will  validly  executed  at  an  actual 
domicil  is  not  affected  by  a  subsequent 
change  of  domicil,  says  that  "this  amend- 
ment of  the  law  has  been  adopted  gen- 
erally in  the  United  States"  (Wh.  Contl. 
L.  §  ^i86),  citing  1  Redf  (3d  ed.)  381,  Coffin 
;•.  Otis,  11  Met.  (Mass.)  156,  and  Manuel 
V.  Manuel,  13  Oh.  St.  458.  These  au- 
thorities do  not,  however,  seem  to  warrant 
the  statement. 

^  Such  is  the  statutory  provision  in 
several  States,  among  them  in  Missouri. 
Yet  it  was  here  held,  in  the  face  of  this 
statute,  that  a  will  made  in  another  vState 
by  a  person  then  a  resident  of  such  State, 
but  who  afterwards  removes  to  this  State, 


496  THE   PROBATE   OP  THE    WILL.  §  227 

The  rule    requiring  the  validity   of   a  will  affecting  personal 

property  to  be  tested  by  the  law  of  the  testator's  doniicil,  does  not 

extend  to  the  execution  or  construction  of  a  ijower  of 

Law  govern- 
ing power  of      appointment  by  will  ;  the  law  of  the  domicil   of  the 
apiioin  11     .      ^Jqj-,qj.  y£  ^jjQ  power,  and  not  of  the  testator,  governs 

in  such  case.^ 

The  provision  of  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  requir- 
ing full  faith  and  credit  to  be  given  m  each  State  to  the  public 
Full  faith  and  acts,  rccords,  and  judicial  proceedings  of  every  other 
d-n'lLrudi'ca-  ^tate,  and  the  act  of  Congress  relating  thereto,  do  not 
tioiis  under        o;ive  sucli  acts,  rccords,  or  proceedings  any  greater 

Constitution         ^  ■  '  *  o  i 

and  act  of  forcc  and  efficacy  in  the  courts  of  other  States  than 

Congress.  .in  r  i  •    i     ji  ^    i 

they  possess  m  the  States  from  which  they  are  taken, 
and  apply  only  so  tar  as  such  courts  have  jurisdiction.^  Hence, 
while  the  judgment  of  a  court  admitting  a  will  to  probate  is  bind- 
ing on  the  courts  of  every  State  in  respect  of  all  property  under 
its  jurisdiction,  whether  real  or  personal,  yet  it  establishes  nothing 
beyond  that,  and  does  not  take  the  place  of  the  necessary  formali- 
ties to  make  the  will  valid  in  respect  of  real  property  in  other 
.  States,  if  wanting.^ 

A  late  case  decided  in  Connecticut  holds  that,  where  probate 
was  granted  in  New  York  of  a  will  invalid  in  Connecticut,  but 
valid  in  New  York,  such  probate  was  binding  upon  the  courts  of 
Connecticut,  although  a  probate  court  in  Connecticut  had  previ- 
ously decided,  under  circumstances  giving  it  jurisdiction,  that  the 
testatrix  had  died  domiciled  in  Connecticut,  and  had  appointed  an 
administrator.* 

§  227.  Revocation  of  Probate.  —  The  power  to  revoke  probate 
of  a  will  is  exercised  by  English  courts  of  chancery  in  cases 
Revocntinn  in  whcrc  it  is  clcar  that  probate  courts  are  powerless 
England  by       ^q   afford    adequate    relief   against   iniurv    in  conse- 

courts  of  ^  ... 

chancery.  qucucc  of  fraud  or  perjury  committed  in  obtaining  the 

probate.      But  in  the  United   States  there  is  no  such  power  in 

and  dies  a  resident  of  this  State,  is  in-  Wall.    521,   529;    Robertson   v.  PickrcII, 

valid,  if  not  made  according  to  the  laws  109  U.  S.  608. 

of  this  State  :  Nat  v.  Coons,  10  Mo.  543,  3  Robertson  v.  Pickrell,  109  IT.  S.  608, 

546  ;  Stewart  v.  Pettus,  10  Mo.  755.  610  ;  McCormick  v.  SuUivant,  10  Wheat. 

1  Bingham's  Appeal,  64  Pa.  St.  .345;  192,  202;  Darby  v.  Mayer,  10  Wlicat. 
Sewall  V.  Wilmer,  132  Mass.  131,  citing  465,  469;  McCartney  v.  Osburn,  118  111. 
English  cases  ;  1  Jarm.  *29.  403,  410;  Osburn  ;;.  McCartney,  121  I!l. 

2  Suydam  ;;.  Barber,  18  N.  Y.  468, 472  ;  408,  411. 

Public  Works  v.  Columbia  College,  17  *  Willett's  Appeal,  50  Conn.  330.' 


§  227  REVOCATION  OF  PROBATE.  497 

chancery,  except  as  pointed  out  by  statute,  in  some  otherwise  in 
of  the  States.  "  Wherever  the  power  to  probate  states. 
a  will  is  given  to  a  probate  or  surrogate's  court,  the  decree  of 
such  court  is  final  and  conclusive,  and  not  subject,  except  on 
an  appeal  to  a  higher  court,  to  be  questioned  in  any  other  court, 
or  to  be  set  aside  or  vacated  by  the  court  of  chancery  on  any 
ground."  ^  This  language  is  quoted  and  approved  by  Justice 
Bradley  of  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States,^  and  received 
the  unanimous  assent  of  the  whole  court,  save  that  Judges  Clifford 
and  Davis  qualified  it  to  the  extent  of  claiming  jurisdiction  for 
chancery  courts  in  cases  where  there  is  no  adequate  remedy  in 
the  probate  court  for  a  party  injured  by  perjury  or  fraud.  Judge 
Story,  the  stanch  vindicator  of  the  most  comprehensive  chancery 
powers,  says  that  there  is  but  one  exception  to  the  concurrent 
jurisdiction  of  chancery  courts  in  all  matters  of  fraud,  which  is 
fraud  in  obtaining  probate  of  a  will ;  and  he  finds  it  "  not  easy  to 
discern  the  grounds  upon  which  this  exception  stands  in  point  of 
reason  or  principle,  although  it  is  clearly  settled  by  authority."  ^ 
The  common  law  rule  is  stated  to  be,  that  the  remedy  for  fraud  in 
obtaining  a  will  is  exclusively  vested,  in  wills  of  personalty,  in 
the  ecclesiastical  courts  ;  and  in  wills  of  real  estates,  in  the  courts 
of  common  law.* 

The  power  to  revoke  exists,  however,  in  the  probate  court  itself, 
in  all  cases  where  the  court  acted  without  jurisdiction,  without 
notice,  where  the  statute  requires  notice,  or  in  dis-  power  to 
regard  of  some  statutory  requirement,  so  that  the  Jn^^rohltt^^^^ 
decree  or  judgment  rendered  is  void ;  ^  and  so  where  ^°"'"*- 
a  later  will  is  discovered  subsequently  to  the  probate  of  an  earlier 
one,  there  is  no  doubt  of  the  power  of  the  probate  court  to  estab- 

1  State  V.  McGlynn,  20  Cal.  2.>3,  268.  ordinary  to  try  the  will  de  novo;  an  ex- 

2  In  Broderick's  Will,  21  Wall.  503.  pedient    also   resorted   to   in   Palmer   v. 

3  Story,  Eq.  Jur.  §  440.  Among  the  Mikell,  2  Desaus.  342  ;  Howell  v.  Whit- 
cases  so  holding,  see  Gaines  r.  Cliew,  2  clnirch,  4  Hay w.  49  ;  Burrow  v.  RagLaiid, 
How  (U.  S.)  019;  Tarver  v.  Tarver,  9  6  Humph.  481,  484 ;  Lyne  i^.  Guardian,  1 
Pet.  174,  180;  Ewell  r.  Tidwell,  20  Ark.  Mo.  410;  Trotters  o.  Winchester,  1  Mo. 
136,  141;  Townsend  v.  Townsend,  4  413;  Colton  v.  Ross,  2  Pai.  396,  398; 
Coldw.  70,  80 ;    Slade  v.  Street,  27  Ga.  Wells  v.  Stearns,  35  Hun,  323. 

17;  Booth  V.  Kitchen,  7  Hun,  25-5,  259;  *  Story,  Eq.  Jur.  §  184. 

Walters  v.  Ratliff,  5  Bush,  575;  McDow-  5  Waters  v.  Stickney,  12  Allen,  1,  9 

ell  V.  Peyton,  2  Desaus.  313,  320,  decree-  et  seq. ;  Lawrence's  Will,  7  N.  J.  Eq.  215, 

ing    that   the   defendants    consent    to    a  221;   Roy  v.  Segrist,  19  Ala.  810,  813; 

revocation  of  the  probate,  to  enable  the  Sowell  v.  Sowell,  40  Ala.  243,  245. 
VOL.  I.  —  32 


498  THE   PEOBATE    OF  THE   WILL.  §  227 

lish  the  later  will.^  But  where  a  will  has  been  conclusively  es- 
tablished, the  production  of  a  later  will  for  probate,  not  in  terms 
revoking  the  former,  does  not  raise  the  question  of  revocation, 
and  such  revocation  cannot  be  determined  in  such  proceeding  if 
there  is  room  for  dispute  as  to  construction.  The  probate  of  the 
former  will  should  be  left  to  stand  for  what  it  is  worth,  and  its 
effect  decided  elsewhere.^  It  has  been  held  that  no  lapse  of  time 
will  bar  an  application  for  the  revocation  of  the  invalid  probate 
of  a  will,  in  the  court  which  granted  it  ;^  but  unless  the  power  to 
review  or  revoke  is  conferred  by  statute,  no  merely  erroneous 
probate  can  be  set  aside  by  the  probate  court  after  the  term  at 
which  it  was  granted  has  expired.* 

In  most  States,  however,  the  revocation  of  probates  is  regulated 

by  the  statutory  provisions  concerning  the  probate,  as  will  appear 

from  the  consideration  of  this  subject  in  the  opening  sections  of 

this  chapter.^     It  may  be  assumed  that,  with  the  ex- 

Probate  not  .  pio,  .  i-iji  ii        r 

impeachable  ccptiou  01  a  icw  01  tlic  hitatcs  m  which  the  probate  ot 
a  eia  j.  ^  ^.^^  .^^  ^j^^  commou  form,  or  ex  parte,  is  not  conclu- 
sive as  to  real  estate  devised,  no  probate,  decreed  by  a  court  hav- 
ing jurisdiction  of  probates,  is  impeachable  collaterally  ;  to  annul, 
set  aside,  or  revoke  such  probate,  there  must  be  a  direct  proceed- 
How  probate  ing  to  that  end  upon  notice  to  all  parties  interested.*^ 
revoked.  This  may  be  by  appeal  from  the  decree  establishing 

1  Per  Gray,  J.,  in  Waters  v.  Stickney,  90,  92 ;  Schultz  v.  Schultz,  10  Gratt.  .358, 
12  Allen,  1,  11 :  "A  court  of  probate  has  373;  Vance  v.  Upson,  64  Tex.  266,  269. 
no  more  power  by  a  decree  establishing  But  it  is  held  in  some  States  that  the  pro- 
one  testamentary  instrument  to  preclude  pounding  of  a  codicil  is  a  contest  pro 
the  subsequent  probate  of  a  later  one  <a?!^o,  and  can  be  treated  as  such  only: 
never  before  brought  to  its  notice,  than  Estate  of  Adsit,  Myr.  266 ;  Hardy  v. 
b}-  a  decree   approving  one   account  to  Hardy,  26  Ala.  524. 

discharge  an  administrator  from  respon-  ^  Besan9on  r.  Brownson,  39  Mich  388. 

sibility  for  assets  not  actually  accounted  ^  Clagett  v.  Hawkins,  11  Md.  381,  387  ; 

for."    This  point  was  commented  on  by  to  the  same  etTect,  Bailey  v.  Osborn,  33 

-Justice  Wayne  in  Gaines   v.  Hennen,  24  Miss.  128. 

How.  553,  567 :  "  Courts  of  probate  may  *  McCarty  v.  McCarty,  8  Bush,  504, 

for  cause  recall  or  annul   testamentary  506. 

letters,  but  they  can  neither  destroy  nor  ^  Ante,  §  215. 

revoke  wills  ;  though  they  may  and  often  ^  Castro  v.  Richardson,  18  Cal.  478 ; 

have  declared  that  a  posterior  will  of  a  Taylor  v.  Tibbats,  13  B.  Mon.  177,  181, 

testator  shall  be  recognized  in  the  place  citing  Well's  Will,  5  Litt.  273 ;  Cochran 

of  a  prior  will  which  had  been  proved,  v.  Young,  104  Pa.  St.  333;    Roberts   v. 

when  it  was  not  known  to  the  court  that  Flanagan,  21  Neb.  508;  Kirk  i'.  Bowling, 

the  testator  had   revoked   it."     To  the  20  Neb.  260 ;  Dower  v.  Seeds,  28  W.  Va. 

like  effect,    Bowen  v.  Jolinson,  5  R.  I.  113,  143. 
112,  119;    Campbell  i;.  Logan,  2  Bradf. 


REVOCATION   OF  PROBATE. 


499 


or  rejecting  the  probate,  by  any  person  interested  in  the  will,^  but 
which,  since  the  right  thereto  is  purely  statutory,  must  be  pur- 
sued in  strict  compliance  with  the  requirements  of  the  statute  ;  ^ 
or  it  may  be  by  contest,  which  any  interested  person  may  insti- 
tute who  was  not  a  party  to  the  original  proceeding  resulting  in 
the  probate  or  rejection  of  the  will,^  either  in  the  court  which 
granted  the  probate,^  or  in  a  superior  court  of  law,*''  or  in  a  court 
of  chancery,''  as  may  be  provided  by  the  statute.'  These  proceed- 
ings are  in  most  instances  limited  to  a  given  period  of  time,  after 
which  the  probate  becomes  absolutely  conclusive,  or  is  impeach- 
able on  the  ground  of  fraud  alone  ;  ^  and  a  court  of  equity  will 


1  Northampton  v.  Smith,  11  Met. 
(Mass.)  390,  393,  recognizing  the  right 
to  appeal  in  a  corporation  to  whicli  the 
legal  title  to  a  fund  was  devised  to  be 
held  in  trust,  although  payable  at  a  future 
and  distant  day  ;  Cheever  v.  Judge,  45 
Mich.  6;  Howe  v.  Pratt,  11  Vt.  2-55; 
Scribner  v.  Williams,  1  Pai.  550 ;  New- 
house  i\  Gale,  1  Redf.  217  ;  Havelick  v. 
Havelick,  18  Iowa,  414  ;  Will  of  Alexan- 
der, 27  N.  J.  Eq.  463  ;  on  appeal,  tlie  pre- 
sumption is  in  favor  of  the  probate  : 
RoUwagen  v.  Rollwagen,  3  Hun,  121, 128  ; 
Estate  of  Sticknoth,  7  Nev.  22-3,  228. 

2  Dennison  v.  Talmage,  29  Oh.  St.  433. 

3  Worthington  v.  Gittings,  56  Md.  542, 
547;  Cunningliam's  Estate,  54  Cal.  556  ; 
Bailey  v.  Stewart,  2  Redf.  212,  224;  a 
creditor  of  the  testator  cannot  invoke 
the  power  to  revoke  probate  of  a  will : 
Heilman  v.  Jones,  5  Redf.  398;  State  Na- 
tional Bank  v.  Evans,  32  La.  An.  464.  In 
California,  where  tiie  statute  saves  to 
minors  one  year  after  removal  of  disabil- 
ity to  contest  tlie  validity  of  a  will,  it  is 
held  that  probate  is  not  conclusive  upon 
a  minor,  where  tlicre  has  been  no  contest, 
although  citation  had  been  served  upon 
him,  and  an  attorney  appointed  to  rep- 
resent him  in  the  probate :  Samson  i-. 
Samson,  64  Cal.  327. 

*  Estate  of  Rice,  Myr.  183  ;  Hubbard 
V.  Hubbard,  7  Or.  42,  44  ;  Miller  v.  Miller, 
5  Heisk.  723,  727  ;  Will  of  Kellum,  50' 
N.  Y.  298 ;  Matter  of  Paige,  62  Barb. 
476;  Dickenson  v.  Stewart,  1  Murph.  99; 
Brown  v.  Gibson,  1  Nott  &  McC.  326  (ac- 
cording to  the  common  law,  at  any  time 
within  thirty  years). 


5  Leighton  v.  Orr,  44  Iowa,  679,  682 ; 
Kelsey  v.  Kelsey,  57  Iowa,  383. 

®  Johnston  v.  Glasscock,  2  Ala.  218, 
233  ;  McCall  y.Vallandingham,  9  B.  Mon. 
449.  But  one  who  has  appeared  to  the 
original  probate  and  unsuccessfully  pros- 
ecuted an  appeal  therefrom,  cannot  there- 
after file  a  bill  in  chancery  to  contest  the 
will:  Dale  v.  Hays,  14  B.  Mon.  315,  317; 
unless  he  withdraws  before  the  order  ad- 
mitting tlie  will  to  probate  is  made  : 
Dillard  v.  Dillard,  78  Va.  208.  The  pro- 
ceeding in  chancery  is  held  in  Ohio  to  be 
binding  only  on  the  parties  to  the  suit, 
being  void  as  to  all  others  :  McArthur  v. 
Scott,  113  U.  S.  840,  387  el  seq.,  reviewing 
Ohio  authorities. 

'  Ante,  §  215.  In  Indiana  a  contest 
may  be  instituted  before  or  after  the  in- 
strument is  admitted  to  probate  :  Curry 
V.  Bratney,  29  Ind.  195.  In  Kentucky 
the  probate  can  only  be  set  aside  by  ap- 
peal to  a  higher  court ;  but  an  original 
bill  in  equity  to  set  aside  the  probate  of 
a  will  is  allowed  upon  grounds  which 
would  give  equity  jurisdiction  over  any 
other  judgment  at  law,  or  to  non-residents 
who  were  not  parties  to  the  original  pro- 
ceeding:  Hughey  v.  Sidwell,  18  B.  Mon. 
259. 

8  Matter  of  Becker,  28  Hun,  207  ;  Post 
j>.  Mason,  26  Hun,  187.  In  Louisiana  the 
prescription  of  five  years  bars  nullities 
of  form  in  the  probate :  Porter  v.  Horns- 
by,  32  La.  An.  337.  It  is  sufficient,  how- 
ever, if  the  proceedings  be  cmnmpnced 
witliin  the  time  :  Estate  of  Sbarboro, 
Myr.  255,  258  ;  Stewart  v.  Harriman,  56 
N.  H.  25.     Where  time  is  given,  in  addi- 


500  THE   PROBATE   OF   THE    WILL.  §  227 

set  aside  a  judgment  rejecting  a  will  in  solemn  form,  obtained  by 
collusion  or  fraud,  and,  if  the  will  had  already  been  probated  in 
common  form,  reinstate  such  probate.^  Another  form  in  which  the 
probate  of  a  will  may  be  controlled  is  by  the  right  recognized  in 
some  States  in  the  next  of  kin,  to  demand  the  establishment  of  a 
will  in  solemn  form  which  had  been  admitted  to  probate  in  com- 
mon form.2  This  method  does  not  commend  itself  as  a  wise  or 
just  rule,  and  meets  with  little  favor  from  courts,^ 

The  probate  cannot  be  revoked  as  to  some  and  not  as  to 
others ;  hence  a  judgment  entered  in  pursuance  of  a  stipula- 
Partiai  revoca-  tion  of  the  partics  to  the  contest  for  the  revocation, 
tion  disallowed,  -^i^e^.gijy  f]^Q  probate  is  annulled  merely  as  to  con- 
testant, is  void.* 

The  right  to  contest  the  validity  of  a  probate  granted,  in  the 
method  pointed  out  by  the  statute,  may  be  exercised  by  any 
Any  person  pcrsou  who  has  a  Substantial  interest  in  the  will  so 
conTettprobrte.  established,  whether  domestic  or  foreign,^  But  since 
a  person  cannot  hold  under  a  will  and  also  against  it,^ 
tlkh"°under  ^^'^  ^^^^  acccpts  a  beneficial  interest  under  a  will 
the  will.  thereby  bars  himself  from  setting  up  a  claim  which 

will  prevent  its  full  operation,^  at  law  or  in  equity  ;  ^  and  such 

tion  to  the  period  of  limitation,  after  the  And  this  is  not  all.     A  part  of  the  heirs 

discovery  of  fraud  or  forgery,  to  contest  and  legatees  occupying  the  same  status 

a  will,  the  contestant  must  show  due  dili-  precisely  toward   the   litigation   and   its 

gence,  or  he  will  be  barred  :  Ransome  v.  subject  matter  fail,  and  a  part  recover ! 

Bearden,  50  Tex.  119,  127.  A   mischief   so    patent    should    not    be 

1  Smith  V.  Harrison,  2  Heisk.  230,  242.  tolerated." 

2  In  South  Carolina  this  right  is  lim-  *  In  re  Freud,  73  Cal.  555. 

ited  to  four  years  :  Craig  v.  Beatty,  11  ^  Lynch  v.  Miller,  54  Iowa,  516,  518; 
S.  C.  .375,  379,  citing  Kinard  v.  Riddle-  a  fortiori  a  foreign  will,  affecting  lands 
hoover,  3  Rich.  258.  In  Georgia,  to  seven  in  tiie  State  where  it  has  not  been  admit- 
years  :  Vance  v.  Crawford,  4  Ga.  445,  ted  to  probate,  may  be  contested  when 
457  ;  Howell  v.  Whitchurch,  4  Hayw.  49.  offered  as  evidence  in  a  suit  of  eject- 
Contesting  probate  in  common  form  by  ment :  Fennel  v.  Weyant,  2  Harring.  501. 
counsel  for  the  heirs,  but  without  their  6  Smart  v.  Easley,  5  J.  J.  Marsh.  214, 
knowledge  or  consent,  is  held  not  to  215;  Herbert  v.  Wren,  7  Cr.  370,  878; 
waive  their  right  to  probate  in  solemn  Preston  r.  Jones,  9  Fa.  St.  456,  459,  citing 
form :  Gray  v.  Gray,  60  N.  H.  28.  Whistler  v.  Webster,  2  Ves.  Jr.  367. 

3  Lumpkin,  J.,  of  tlie  Supreme  Court  ^  Smith  v.  Guild,  34  Me.  443,  447,  cit- 
of  Georgia,  in  Walker  v.  Ferryman,  23  ing  Thellusson  w.  Woodford,  13  Ves.  209; 
Ga.  .309,  317,  says,  in  an  earnest  appeal  Hyde  v.  Baldwin,  17  Pick.  303 ;  Weeks  v. 
to  the  legislature  to  abolish  the  double  Patten,  18  Me.  42  ;  Benedict  v.  Mont- 
probate  of  wills  :  ' '  The  expense  of  attend-  gomery,  7  Watts  &  S.  238,  243. 

ing   the  re-probate  of  wills,  in  Georgia,  ^  Smith  v.  Smith,  14  Gray,  532  ;  Van 

since  I  have  been  on  the  bench,  has  cost  Duyne  v.  Van  Duyne,  14  N.  J.  Eq.  49, 
the  public  more  than  its  Supreme  Court.     52 ;  Fulton  v.  Moore,  25  Pa.  St.  468,  476. 


§  228  EFFECT  OF  THE  PROBATE.  501 

person  will  not,  therefore,  be  allowed  to  contest  a  will,  unless  lie 
return  the  legacy  received.^  Nor  will  the  revocation  of  probate 
on  the  motion  of  one  having  been  under  disabilit}',  inure  to  the 
benefit  of  one  who  is  barred  by  the  lapse  of  tirae.''^  And  if  a  will 
be  annulled  after  the  distribution  of  the  estate,  the  decree  of  dis- 
tribution is  not  thereby  made  void,  but  it  will  protect  and  remain 
valid  as  to  subsequent  purchasers  from  the  distributee;^  but 
the  heir  may  pursue  the  property  distributed  in  the  hands  of  the 
distributee.'^ 

§  228.  Effect  of  the  Probate.  —  It  has  already  appeared  ^  that 
at  common  law,  without  the  constat  of  the  probate  court,  no  other 
court  can  take  notice  of  the  rights  of  representation  to  ^    ,. , 

^  ^  English  statute 

personal  property,*^  and  that  wills  devising  real  estate  requirini,'  pro- 
must  be  proved  in  the  common  law  courts.     By  the  before  they 
statute  of  20  &  21  Vict.  c.  77,  §  13,  all  wills,  whether  ^'-^^^  ^'^^^f- 
of  real  or  personal   property,  are  required   to  be  proved  in  the 
court  of  probates.     Similar  statutes  had  long  before  existed  in 
most  of  the  American  States,  and  the  constat  of  the  probate  court 
is  necessary  to  the  validity  of  wills  of  personalty  in  all,  and  of 
wills  of  realty  in  most  of  them.     In  Arkansas,"  Mary-  states  allowing 
land,8  New  York,^  Pennsylvania,!^  South  Carolina,"  rstatel'be^ 
and  probably  in  other  States,  the  probate  of  the  pro-  P'^^^et^  J" 

,  7  r  sr  common  law 

bate  court  is  neither  essential  nor  conclusive  as  to  the  comts. 
validity  of  wills  in  proving  title  to  real  estate  :  such  will  may  be 
contested,  if  it  has  been  admitted  to  probate  in  the  probate  court,!^ 
or  proved  originally  if  not,  in  all  common  law  courts  in  which  the 
title  to  land  thereby  affected  is  in  issue.     With  these  exceptions, 

1  Hamblett  v.  Hamblett,  6  N.  H.  333,  8  Darby  v.  Mayer,  10  Wheat.  465,  470. 
337,  citing  Bell  v.  Armstrong,  1  Add.  »  Jackson  v.  Le  Grange,  19  John.  386, 
365;    Brahani  v.  Burciiell,  3   Add.  243.     388. 

But  tliis  rule  does  not  apply  to  the  exec-  ^  Smith  i'.  Bonsall,  5  Rawle,  80,  citing 

utor,  who  may  move  to  set  aside  a  pro-  numerous  earlier  cases. 

bate  although  he  has   proceeded  to  act  ^^  Crosland    v.   Murdock,    4  McCord, 

under  the   will :    Gaither  v.  Gaither,  23  217. 

Ga.  521,  528.  i-  The  decree  of  a  register  admitting 

2  Samson  v.  Samson,  64  Cal.  327.  a  will  to  probate  is  held,  in  Pennsylvania, 
^  Thompson  v.  Samson,  64  Cal.  330;  to  be  a  judicial  act,  conclusive  in  all  re- 
but see  Hughes  v.  Burriss,  85  Mo.  660.  spects  as  to  personal,  and  presumptive  as 

■*  Tliompson  v.  Samson,  supra.  to  real  property  :  Cochran  v.  Young,  104 

8  Ante,  §  215.  Pa.  St.  333,  336,  citing  earlier  cases  ;  and, 

^  Wms.  Ex.  [550].  if  uncontroverted  for  five  years,  becomes 

"^  Janes  v.  Williams,  31  Ark.  175,  182.  conclusive   also   as   to   realty  :    Broe   v. 

And  see  Arrington  v.  McLemore,  33  Ark.  Boyle,  108  Pa.  St.  76,  82. 

759,  761. 


502  THE  PROBATE   OF  THE   WILL.  §  228 

Otherwise  iu  however,  neither  courts  of  law  nor  of  equity  will  take 
other  States,  coguizauce  of  testamentary  papers,  or  of  the  rights 
depending  upon  them,  until  after  probate  in  the  probate  court.^ 
That  such  probate  is  conclusive,  unless  appealed  from,  set  aside, 
or  annulled,  in  the  method  pointed  out  by  the  statute,  has  already 
been  stated.^  It  may  be  mentioned,  in  connection  with  this  sub- 
ject, that  the  efflux  of  time,  in  some  instances,  operates  to  confirm 
a  probate  otherwise  assailable  for  informality,  or  renders  the 
probate  conclusive  after  a  certain  period.^ 

It  has  already  been  remarked  that  it  is  the  function  of  a  court 
of  probate  to  determine  whether  the  instrument  propounded  has 

been  executed  by  the  testator  and  attested  by  the  sub- 
Difference  in  •'       .  .  "^ 

the  fimctious  scribiug  witncsscs  in  accordance  witii  the  statutory 
probate  and  of  requirements,  and  whether  he  possessed  sufficient 
construction,  testamentary  capacity  to  make  a  valid  will.*  It  is  no 
part  of  the  proceeding  on  probate  to  construe  or  interpret  the  will 
or  any  of  its  provisions,  or  to  distinguish  between  valid  and  void, 
rational  and  impossible  dispositions ;  if  the  will  be  properly  exe- 
cuted and  proved,  it  must  be  admitted  to  probate,  although  it 
contain  not  a  single  provision  capable  of  execution,  or  valid  under 
the  law.  Hence  the  probate  does  not  establish  the  validity  of  any 
of  its  provisions :  this  is  to  be  determined  by  the  courts  of  con- 
struction, when  any  question  arises  requiring  their  interposition.^ 

1  Wood  V.  Matthews,  53  Ala.  1,  citing  held  sufficient  after  twenty  years  ;  Brown 
numerous  earlier  cases ;  Pitts  v.  Melser,  i-.  Wood,  17  Mass.  68.  In  Pennsylvania 
72  Ind.  469,  with  a  list  of  Indiana  cases  ;  the  probate  becomes  conclusive  as  to  real 
Kerr  v.  Moon,  9  Wheat.  665,  572  ;  Wil-  estate  after  five  years  :  Kcnyon  v.  Stew- 
lamette  Co.  v.  Gordon,  6  Or.  175,  180;  art,  44  Pa.  St.  179.  Where  notice  of 
Dublin  V.  Chadbourn,  16  Mass.  48.3,  4.36 ;  probate  is  required  by  statute,  the  omis- 
Fotheree  v.  Lawrence,  30  Miss.  416,  419  ;  sion  in  the  record  of  proof  of  such  notice 
State  V.  Judge,  &c.,  17  La.  An.  189.  In  was  not  allowed  to  be  shown  in  deroga- 
Louisiana  a  will  is  without  effect  until  it  tion  of  the  probate  fifteen  years  subse- 
ts proved  and  ordered  to  be  executed  ;  quently  :  Portz  v.  Schantz,  36  N.  W.  Rep. 
Aubert  V.  Aubert,  6  La.  An.  104  ;  Ochoa  (Wis.)  249.  253  ;  S.  C.  70  Wis.  407. 

V.   Miller,    59    Tex.  460,   citing    earlier  *  Ante,   §  222,   and   authorities   there 

Texas  cases,  p.  461.  cited;    McLaughlin's    Will,    Tuck.    79; 

2  Ante,   §  227.     Among   the   cases  so  Lorieux  v.  Keller.  5  Iowa,  196,  201. 
liolding,  see  Hegarty's  Appeal,  75  Pa.  St.  ^  Bent's  Appeal,  35  Conn.  523;  Lusk 
50.3,  513 ;  Hilliard  v.  Binford,  10  Ala.  977.  v.  Lewis,  32  Miss.  297,  300  ;   Waters  v. 
983.  Cullen,  2  Bradf  3-54  ;  Jalliffe  v.  Fanning, 

3  Dickey  v.  Vann,  81  Ala.  425,  432.  10  Rich.  L.  186;  Broe  v.  Boyle,  108  Pa. 
Thus,  a  will  requiring  two  witnesses  and  St.  76,  83;  McArthur  v.  Scott,  113  U.  S. 
attested  by  only  one  was  held  conclusive-  340,  386.  See,  to  the  contrary,  the  case  of 
ly  proved  after  the  lapse  of  seven  years :  Kenrick  v.  Cole.  61  Mo.  572,  mentioned 
Parker  v.  Brown,  6  Gratt.  5-54.    So  where  ante,  §  222,  p.  485,  note  5. 

three  were  required,  proof  by  two  was 


229  HOW   THE   EXECUTOR   IS   CONSTITUTED.  503 


CHAPTER  XXV. 

OF   THE   GRANT   OF   LETTERS   TESTAMENTARY. 

§  229.    How  the  Executor  is  constituted.  —  Upon  probate  of  the 
will,  letters  testamentary  may  be  granted  to  such  of  the  executors 
named  by  the  testator  as  are  willing  to  assume  the  Letters  testa- 
trust.i     The  court  has  no  discretion  in  this  respect,  LTgSed  tf 
but  must  grant  the  letters  to  the  person  or  persons  ^''®  testator's 

'^  i-  r  nominees  if 

nominated,  unless  such  person  is  disqualified  by  law.  quaiitied. 
There  need  be  no  appointment  by  the  testator  in  direct  bvThefeSor'' 
terms ;  it  is  sufficient  if  a  person  is  desis-nated  to  dis-  s"*fic'ent  to 

,  '  ^  appoint 

charge  those  duties  which  appertain  to  the  office  of  executor. 
executor,  or  that  any  language  is  used  from  which  the  intention 
of  the  testator  may  be  inferred  to  invest  such  person  with  the 
character  of  executor.^  He  may  also  delegate  the  appointment  of 
an  executor  to  some  third  person,  and  letters  testamentary  will  be 
granted  to  the  person  by  him  named.^  But  the  grant  of  letters 
testamentary  to  a  person  not  named  or  indicated  by  the  testator  is 
erroneous,  and  has  in  South  Carolina  been  held  void.* 

The  test  of  a  constructive  appointment  as  executor,  or  of  an 
executor  according  to  the  tenor  of  the  will,  may  be  found  by  con- 
sidering whether  the  acts  to  be  done  or  the  powers  to  instances  of 
be  exercised  by  the  person  are  such  as  pertain  to  the  a°"oh"ment 
office  of  an  executor.     Thus,  the  testator's  declaration  ^^  executor. 

1  The  grant  of  general  letters  of  ad-  Paulet,  2  Robert.  Eccl.  344.  So  the  testa- 
ministration,  instead  of  letters  cum  testa-  tor  may  empower  the  survivor  or  sur- 
mento  anne.ro,  has  been  held  void  :  Fields  vivors,  in  case  of  tiie  death  of  any  of  the 
V.  Carlton,  75  Ga.  654,  5G0.  executors,  to  appoint  otherexecutors  to  fill 

2  Carpenter  v.  Cameron,  7  Watts,  51,  any  sucli  places  as  may  be  made  vacant 
58 ;  Grant  v.  Spann,  34  Miss.  294,  302 ;  by  death,  until  the  will  shall  have  been 
Nunn  V.  Owens,  2  Strobh.  lOL  104  ;  wholly  executed,  and  such  appointees 
Bayeaux  j;.  Bayeaux,  8  Pai.  333,  336  ;  will  be  clothed  with  the  trust  estate  in 
Ex  parte  McDonnell,  2  Bradf.  32;  Myers  the  place  of  their  predecessors  :  Mulford 
V.  Daviess,  10  B.  Mon.  394;  State  v.  v.  Mulford,  42  N.  J.  Eq.  68,  76. 
Watson,  2  Speers,  97,  106.  *  Blakely  v.  Frazier,  20  S.  C.  144,  155; 

3  Hartnett  v.  Wandell,  60  N.  Y.  846 ;  see  also  Fields  v.  Carlton,  supra. 
State  V.  Rogers,  1  Houst.  569 ;  Jackson  v. 


504  THE   GRANT   OF   LETTERS   TESTAMENTARY.  §  229 

"  that  A.  B.  shall  have  his  goods  after  his  death  to  pay  his  debts, 
and  otherwise  to  dispose  at  his  pleasure,"  and  the  like  expres- 
sions,!  may  suffice  for  this  purpose.  So  too  the  commitment  of 
one's  property  to  "the  disposition"  of  A.  B.  ;2  or  the  direction 
tliat  A.  B.  shall  pay  debts  and  funeral  and  probate  charges,  or 
shall  receive  the  property  and  pay  the  legacies;-^  or  the  gift  to 
A.  B.  of  all  one's  property,  to  apply  the  same  "  after  payment  of 
debts  "  to  the  payment  of  legacies.^  Tiie  appointment  to  a  trust 
under  the  will,  not  essential  to  the  office  of  an  executor,  does  not 
constitute  the  trustee  an  executor  according  to  the  tenor,  for  the 
offices  of  an  executor  and  of  a  trustee  are  distinct,  and  may  be 
vested  in  different  persons ;  and  when  they  are  vested  in  the  same 
person,  the  functions  of  each  are  nevertheless  to  be  performed  by 
him  in  the  respective  capacity,  the  probate  court  having  jurisdic- 
tion over  him  in  the  one,  but  not  in  the  other  capacity ;  °  and  an 
administrator  de  bonis  non  cum  testameyito  a7inexo,  appointed  after 
the  death  of  an  executor  who  was  also  appointed  trustee  in  the 
will,  does  not  virtute  officii  succeed  to  the  trust.^  But  where  the 
testator  uses  the  word  "  trustee,"  and  imposes  duties  involving  the 
functions  of  an  executor,  this  will  be  held  a  good  appointment  as 
executor." 

As  a  testator  may  nominate  several  executors  to  execute  his 
will  jointly,  so  he  may  direct  a  substitution  of  several,  one  after 
the  other,  so  that,  if  the  first  will  not  act,  the  next  may,  and  so 
on.^  It  is  mentioned  by  Williams,^  on  the  authority  of  Godol- 
pliin  1*^  and  Swinburne,^!  that  the  appointment  may  be  by  impli- 
cation; as,  "  I  will  that  A.  B.  be  my  executor  if  C.  D.  will  not," 
in  which  case  the  appointment  is  to  C.  D.  if  he  accept.  Or 
where  the  testator  erroneously  supposes  that  one  whom  he  wishes 
to  appoint  is  dead,  and  says  in  his  will,  "  Forasmuch  as  [A.  B.  or 
C.  D.]  is  dead,  I  make  E.  F.  my  executor,"  the  person  supposed 

1  Wms.  Ex.  [239]  ;  Schouler,  Ex.  §  36.  see  Matter  of  Hawley,  104  N.  Y.  250, 
Both  these  authors  cite  Henfrey  v.  Hen-     263. 

frey  as  authority  for  this  announcement ;  ^  Kni<rht   v.   Loomis,  30  Me.  204;   to 

but  the  case,  as  reported  in  4  Moore's  P.  similar  effect,  Simpson  v.  Cook,  24  Minn. 

C.  Reports,  pp.  29,  33,  does  not  seem  to  180,  187. 

raise  this  question.  '  Richards  v.  Moore,  5  Redf.  278,  282. 

2  Pemberton  v.  Cony,  Cro.  Eliz.  164.  «  Edwards'     Estate,     12    Phila.     85  ; 

3  Pickering  v.  Towers,  2  Cas.  Temp.  Schoul.  Ex.  §  40,  and  English  authori- 
Lee,  401.  ties. 

4  Goods   of  Bell,   L.  R.  4  P.  D.  85.  9  Wms.  Ex.  [242]. 
And  see  cases  supra.  i''  Pt.  2,  c.  5,  §  3. 

5  Wheatley  v.  Badger,  7  Pa.  St.  459 ;  "  Pt.  4,  §  4,  pi.  6. 


§  230  KESIDENCE   AS   A   QUALIFICATION.  505 

to  1)0  dead  shall  be  executor  if  living.  So  where  a  man  willed 
that  none  should  have  any  dealings  with  his  goods  until  his  son 
came  to  the  age  of  eighteen  years,  except  A.  B.,  the  latter  was 
thereby  appointed  executor  during  the  son's  minority.^  But 
where  executors  were  appointed,  with  a  request  that  they  were  to 
serve  until  the  testator's  son  became  twenty-one  years  of  age,  this 
was  held  not  to  be  an  appointment  of  the  son  to  the  executorship 
when  he  should  arrive  at  the  designated  age.^ 

§  230.    Residence    as  a  Qualification  to   the  Office  of  Executor.  — 
At  common  law  non-residence  of  the  testator's  appointee  docs  not 
disqualify  him  as  executor ;  even  alien  enemies  have  been  allowed 
to  maintain  actions  as  executors.^     The  same  rule  prevails  in  most 
American  States ;  "^  but  in  Arkansas,^  Indiana,*^  Kan- 
sas,-"  Kentucky,^  Minnesota,^  Missouri,^"^  Nebraska,^^  Or-  non-residence 
egon,^'-^  and  Pennsylvania,^^  non-residents  of  the  State    '^'^"^ 
are  not  permitted  to  act  as  executors  ;  and  if  an  executor  removes 
from  the  State  after  being  appointed,  his  authority  as  such  will 
be  revoked.     In  other  States,  also,  non-residents  are  states  in  which 
discriminated  against  in  respect  of  the  office  of  exec-  are  TfJcrlnii-^ 
utor.    So,  in  Georgia,  a  non-resident  of  the  State  may  n^ted  against. 
be  appointed  and  act  as  such  if  he  has  an  interest  in  the  estate 
and  will  give  bond ;  ^*  but  removal  from  the  State  does  not  abate 
letters  testamentary .^^     In  Iowa  the  non-resident  executor  of  a 
non-resident  testator  may  be  appointed  to  administer ;  ^^  and  in 
Maine,^"  Michigan,^^  and  Ohio,^^  non-resident  executors  who  fail  to 
account  and  settle  in  the  probate  court  when  required  are  to  be 

1  Per   Rhodes,    J.,    in    Brightman   v.  ^  Comp.  L.  1885,  ch.  37,  §  28. 
Keighley,   Cro.   Eliz.  43,   stating  that  it  «  Qen.  St.  1887,  p.  594,  §  19. 
had  been  so  ruled  in  17  Eliz.  ^  Gary,  Pr.  L.  §  240. 

2  Frisby  i-.  Withers,  61  Tex.  134,  138.  i'^  Rev.  St.  1879,  §  10. 

3  Wins.  Ex.  [229].  "  Comp.  L.  1887,  ch.  23,  §  171. 
*  So    in    Alabama    (Leatiierwood    v.         ^'^  Code,  1887,  §  1090. 

Sullivan,  81  Ala.  458),  California,   Con-  '^  Sargent,  J.,  in   Sarkie's   Appeal,  2 

iiecticut,    Colorado,    Delaware,    Florida,  Pa.  St.  157. 

Illinois,  Louisiana,  Masachusetts,  Missis-  ^*  Code,  1882,  §  2434. 

sippi,  Nevada,  New  Jersey,  North  Caro-  '^  Walker    v.    Torrance,   12   Ga.   604. 

lina,  Ohio,  Rhode   Island   (Hammond  v.  The    same    of    administrators  :    Brown 

Wood,   15   R.   I.   566),    South    Carolina,  v.   Strickland,   28   Ga.    387  ;    Haynes   u. 

Tennessee,    Texas,    Vermont,    Virginia,  Semmes,   39  Ark.   399,   402.     Post,   ch. 

West  Virginia,  and  Wisconsin  (see  Cut-  xxvi. 

ler  V.  Howard,  9  Wis.  809).  is  Code,  §  2368. 

5  Digest,    1884,   §   14  ;    McCreary  v.  ^^  Rev.  St.  1883,  ch.  64,  §  2L 
Taylor,  38  Ark.  393.  is  How.  St.  1882,  §  5842. 

6  Ewing  V.  Ewing,  38  Ind.  390.  ^^  Rev.  St.  1880,  §  G017. 


506  THE   GRANT   OF   LETTERS   TESTAMENTARY.  §  232 

removed.  In  New  York,  "  an  alien  residing  out  of  the  State  "  is 
declared  incompetent  to  the  office  of  executor ;  but  this  statute  is 
held  not  to  exclude  a  native  of  the  State  who  may  reside  in 
another  State.^  In  Maryland,  the  executor  must  be  a  citizen  of 
the  United  States  ;2  and  in  North  Carolina,  it  is  held  that  a  non- 
resident may  renounce  the  office  in  that  State,  though  he  accept 
it  in  the  State  of  the  testator's  domicil.^ 

§  231.  Infancy  as  a  Disqualification.  —  At  Common  law  and  in 
many  of  the  American  States,  infancy  does  not  operate  as  a  dis- 
infants eligible  qualification  to  the  eventual  right  of  executorship; 
at  common  law  ^^^^  ^jjg  authority  to  qualify  or  act  as  such  remains  in 

at  the  age  of  j  i.  j 

seventeen;  abeyance  until  the  infant  reach  the  age  of  majority, 
or  such  age  as  may  be  fixed  by  law  or  statute  as  necessary  to 
qualify.  Previous  to  the  statute  of  38  Geo.  III.  c.  87,  §  6,  this 
age  was  fixed  in  England  at  the  age  of  seventeen  years,*  and 
so  in  some  this  is  the  law  in  several  of  the  States;^  in  others, 
States;  ^j^^  ^gg  ^^  eighteen  years ^  is  fixed;  in  many  it  is 

e4;hteen,^*  twcnty-onc  years,"  and  in  most  of  the  others  the  age  of 
oTat  maTority.  ^^Jgal  majority.  Where  an  infant  is  appointed  sole  ex- 
Administration  ecutor,  it  is  the  duty  of  the  probate  court  to  appoint 
until  minor  is     g^j^   administrator   durante   minore   cetate,   cum   testa- 

01  requisite  _    ^ 

age.  mento  an7iexo,  who  is  to  administer  the  estate  until  the 

infant  has  reached  the  requisite  age ;  ^  but  if  other  executors  be 
also  named  who  are  of  full  age,  they  may  execute  the  will  until 
the  majority  of  the  infant,  who  may  then  qualify  and  be  admitted 
as  executor.^  As  to  the  rules  governing  the  appointment  of  an 
administrator  durante  minore  cetate,  see  post^^^  in  connection  with 
the  appointment  of  administrators. 

§  232.  Coverture  as  a  Disqualification  to  the  Office  of  Executrix. 
—  According  to  the  canon  law,  a  married  woman  may  sue  and  be 
sued  alone,  without  her  husband,  and  it  was  held  in  the  spiritual 
courts  of  England  that,  in  the  absence  of  a  writ  of  prohibition, 

^  McGregor   v.   McGregor,    33   How.  "^  In  Alabama,  Arkansas,  Florida,  In- 

Pr.  456.  diana,    Kansas,    Maine,    Massachusetts, 

2  Code,  1875,  p.  443,  §  60.  Missouri,  New  York,  North  Carolina,  and 

3  Hooper  v.  Moore,  5  Jones  L.  130.  South  Carolina. 

4  Wms.  Ex.  [231],  note  (u),  citing  »  See  ante,  §  182,  as  to  administration 
Godolph.,  pt.  2,  c.  9,  §  2 ;  Swinb.,  pt.  5,  §  1,  durante  minore  atate. 

pi.  6  ;  Piggot's  case,  5  Co.  29  a.  ^  Gary,  Pr.  L.  §  240  ;  3  Redf.  on  Wills, 

5  In  Colorado  and  Illinois.  68  ;  Wms.  on  Ex.  [479]. 
^  In  Iowa,  Maryland,  and  Mississippi.         ^^  §  248. 

See  Christopher  v.  Cox,  25  Miss.  162. 


§  233  COVERTURE   AS   A   DISQUALIFICATION.  507 

she  may  take  upon  herself  the  executorship  of  a  will  without,  or 
even  against,  the  husband's  consent  or  will.^  At  com-  Consent  of  hus- 
mon  law,  however,  the  consent  of  the  husband  is  ^ary  a'tVmnmoii 
necessary  to  enable  the  wife  to  assume  the  office  of  l^i^e^Vbe^'''^  ^ 
executrix ;  ^  but  he  cannot  compel  her  to  assume  the  executrix, 
office  against  her  will,^  although  she  will  be  bound,  if  the  hus- 
band administers  as  in  the  wife's  right,  though  against  her  con- 
sent, in  so  far  that  she  cannot  during  his  lifetime  avoid  or  decline 
the  executorship.^ 

In  many  of  the  American  States  married  women  are  not  com- 
petent to  act  as  executrices,  and  if  a  feme  sole  execu-  Coverture  dis- 
trix  marries,  her  authority  is  thereby  extinguished  ;  ^  many  states; 
while  in  others  she  can  do  so  only  with  the  consent  so  in  others  un- 

•^  less  the  hiis- 

of  her  husband,  as  in  Alabama,*'  Colorado,  Delaware,  baud  consent. 
Louisiana,  Maine,''  Massachusetts,^  Mississippi,  New  Jersey,  and 
Wisconsin.      In  California,  Nevada,  and  Texas,  the  Marriage  of  a 
marriage  of   a  feme   sole  executrix  revokes  her  au-  utrixrevok^r' 
thority,  but  a  married  woman  appointed  as  such  is  iier  authority. 
competent  to  act.     In  Iowa,  Massachusetts,^  and  New  York,  a 
married  woman  may  become  executrix  independently  of  her  hus- 
band.   The  common  law  doctrine,  that  the  husband  becomes  exec- 
utor in  right  of  his  wife  upon  marrying  a  feme  sole  executrix,  is 
recognized  in  some  States,^*^  but  does  not  prevail  generally.^^ 

§  233.  Mental  Incapacity,  Immorality,  and  other  Disqualifications. 
—  In  most  of  the  States  there  are  statutory  provisions  disqualify- 

1  Wentw.  Ex.  375-378.  court,  and  letters   testamentary  granted 

2  Wentw.  Ex.  376  ;  Wms.  Ex.  [232] ;  to  a  married  woman  cannot  be  impeached 
3  Redf.  on  Wills,  68.  collaterally,  wtiether  such  consent  appears 

3  Wms.  Ex.  [231],  citing  Godolph.,  affirmatively  or  not:  English  r.  McNair, 
pt.  2,  c.  10,  §  1 ;  Da  Rosa  v.  De  Pinna,  2  34  Ala.  40,  49,  citing  earlier  Alabama 
Gas.  Temp.  Lee,  390.  cases. 

4  Wms.  Ex.  [234], citing Godolphin  and  ^  Stewart's  Appeal,  56  Me.  300. 
Wentworth,  supra;  Wankford  v.  Wank-  ^  Wiggins.  Swett,  6  Met.  (Mass.)  194, 
ford,  1  Salk.  299,  306,  in  Lord  Holt's  judg-  196. 

ment ;  Tlirustout  v.  Croppin,  2  W.  Bl.  801.  ^  Pub.  St.  1882,  ch.  147,  §  5. 

^  For  instance  in  Arkansas,  Indiana,  ^"^  Lindsay  v.  Lindsay,  1   Desaus.  loO ; 

Kentucky,    Michigan,    Minnesota,    Mis-  Wood  v.   Chetwood,   27  N.  J.  Eq.  311. 

souri,  Nebraska,  New  Hampshire,  Rhode  He  becomes  liable  as  co-administrator  for 

Island    (whetlier   coverture   precludes   a  any  act  of  administration  afterwards  per- 

married    woman,    qume  :    Hammond   v.  formed  by  her :  Dowty  v.  Hall,  83  Ala. 

Wood,  15  R.  I.  566),  Vermont,  Virginia,  165.      In   Georgia,  letters  granted   to   a 

and  West  Virsjinia.  woman  abate  on  her  marriage,  but  she 

®  Although   the   statute  requires  the  may   nominate    her    husband  :    Long   v. 

consent   of  the   husband  in  writing,  yet  Huggins,  72  Ga.  776,  788. 

this  is  held  directory  only  to  the  probate  ^^  Ellraaker's  Estate,  4  Watts,  34. 


508  THE   GRANT   OF   LETTERS  TESTAMENTARY.  §  233 

Mental  and  ^"g  persons  named  as  executors  on  account  of  mental 
"^"'^imaition  incapacity  and  immorality.  Insane  persons,  persons 
T  convicted  of  infamous  crime,  and  such  as  are  incom- 

Insane  persons,  ' 

criminals.  petcut  ou  accouut  of  drunkcuness,  improvidence,  or 
Drunkards.  want  of  understanding  or  integrity,  cannot  be  ad- 
mitted as  executors.^  In  Louisiana,  Maryland,  Mississippi,  and 
New  York,  no  person  can  be  appointed  as  executor  who  is  in 
law  incompetent  to  bind  himself  by  contract,  except. 

Persons  in-  .  .  t    •       /-\t  • 

competent  to  in  somc  mstauccs,  married  women ;  and  in  Ohio,  no 
person  who  is  legally  incapable  of  assuming  the  duties 
of  a  trustee.  It  was  held  in  New  York,  under  a  statute  dis- 
qualifying on  account  of  drunkenness,  improvidence  or  want  of 
Ill-regulated  Understanding,  that  executorship  should  be  denied 
temper.  upon  proof  of  mere  ill-regulated  temper  and  want  of 

Professional  sclf-control  existing  in  a  high  degree,^  and  that  a 
gambler.  professional  gambler  is  incompetent  by  reason  of  im- 

providence ;  ^  but  that  an  executor  is  illiterate,  of  narrow  means, 
and  has  been  guilty  of  misconduct  and  mismanagement,  is  not 
cause,  under  the  statute,  for  superseding  him,  though  it  may  be 
for  requiring  security.*  In  Kentucky  the  immoral  character  of  the 
nominee  by  the  testator  is  held  to  be  no  bar  to  his  appointment 
by  the  probate  court,^  and  in  Pennsylvania  conviction  as  a  habit- 
Dissolute  ual  drunkard  is  no  disqualification.^  But  in  Califor- 
person.  j^jg^  ^^^e  paramour  of  a  dissolute  testatrix,  who  had 
done  no  work  for  years,  but  "lived  by  his  wits,"  was  held  an 
improper  person  to  be  appointed  as  executor.^  Touching  the 
principle  upon  which  the  testator's  choice  of  an  executor  is  re- 
spected, Mr.  Schouler  says  (citing,  however,  only  English  cases, 
except  that  of  Sill  v.  McKnight^):  "And  so  far  has  our  law 
carried  this  principle  as  to  permit  persons  obviously  unsuitable 
for  the  trust  to  exercise  it,  to  the  detriment  of  creditors  and 
legatees,  on  the  suggestion  that  the  testator,  at  all  events,  must 
have  confided  in  such  a  person.     Moreover,  as  courts  have  ob- 

1  So  provided  in  the  statutes  of  Ala-  afiBrming  the  Supreme  Court,  and  over- 
bama,  California,  Colorado,  Delaware,  ruling  the  surrogate,  in  Harrison  v.  Mc- 
Illinois,  Indiana,   Maryland,  Mississippi,     Mahon,  1  Bradf.  283. 

Nevada,  New  York,  North  Carolina,  and  *  Emerson  v.  Bowers,  14  N.  Y.  449. 

Texas.  ^  Berry  v.  Hamilton,  12  B.  Mon.  191. 

2  McGregor  v.  McGregor,  33  How.  Pr.  ^  siU  v.  McKnight,  7  Watts  &  S.  244. 
456.  "  Estate  of  Plaisance,  Myr.  117. 

s  McMahon  v.  Harrison,  6  N.  Y.  443,  8  7  Watts  &  S.  244. 


§  233  OTHER   DISQUALIFICATIONS.  509 

served  with  a  touch  of  false  logic,  the  office  of  executor  being 
hold  in  another's  right,  it  is  not  tainted  by  his  personal  guilt.^ 
Ilcncc  not  only  might  persons  attainted  or  outlawed  for  po- 
litical offences  become  executors,  but  even  those  convicted  of 
felony  ;  crime  seldom,  if  ever,  operating  to  disqualify  one  for 
the  trust."  2 

Idiots  and  lunatics  are  deemed  incapable  of  becom-  Wiots  and 
ing  executors,  both  at  the  common  and  the  civil  law.^ 
Poverty,  or  even  insolvency,  constitutes  no  legal  dis-  quailacadon. '^ 
qualification.* 

It  is  said  to  be  settled  law  in  England,  that  where  a  corpo- 
ration aggregate  is  nominated  as  executor,  it  may  corporations 
appoint  persons  styled  syndics  to  receive  administra-  »gs'"esate. 
tion  with  the  will  annexed,  who  are  sworn  like  other  administra- 
tors,^ because  they  cannot  prove  the  will,  or  at  least  cannot  take 
the  oath  for  the  due  execution  of  the  office.^  In  the  United 
States  the  prevalence  of  authority,  once  against  the  competency 
of  corporations  aggregate  to  act  as  executors,"  seems  now  to 
turn  the  other  way.  In  Maryland  it  is  held  that  the  English  doc- 
trine, allowing  them  to  designate  one  of  their  number  to  take 
administration  with  the  will  annexed,  is  not  applicable.^  In  New 
Jersey  this  doctrine  is  recognized  ;  ^  but  whether  a  corporation 
aggregate  can  act  as  executor  when  nominated  is  left  undecided. i<^ 
It  appears  from  the  recital  of  facts  in  the  case  of  Porter  v.  Trail, 
that  a  corporation  in  Philadelphia  is  chartered  by  the  legislature 

1  Sinctliurst  i-.  Tomlin,  2  Sw.  &  Tr.  otlier  grounds  of  tlie  last  author's  doubt 
143.  are  stated  to  be:  1st,  because  tliey  can- 

2  Schoul.  Ex.  §  33,  citing  Wms.  Ex.  not  be  feoffees  in  trust,  to  others'  use ; 
[285] ;  Co.  Litt.  128a;  3  Bulst.  210;  Kil-  2d,  tliey  are  a  body  framed  for  a  special 
ligrew  V.  Killigrew,  1  Vern.  184;  Smet-  purpose." 

hurst  V.  Tomlin,  supra.  7  jt  jg  negatived  in  Maryland  :  Presi- 

3  Schoul.  Ex.  §  33,  giving  as  "  a  good  dent,  &c.  v.  Browne,  34  Aid.  4-50 ;  and 
reason  at  the  outset  "  that  such  a  person  New  York  :  Thompson's  Estate,  .33  Barb, 
cannot  determine  whether  to  accept  the  334.  In  Delaware,  where  foreign  admin- 
trust  or  not.  istrators  are   permitted   to  maintain  ac- 

^  Wms.  Ex.  [235],  citing  Rex  r.  Raines,  tions  as  such,  the  power  of  a  corporation 

1  Ld.  Raym.  861  ;  Hathornthwaite  r.  Rus-  aggregate,   as  administrator,  granted  in 

sell,  2  Atk.  126.     See  post,  appointment  another  State,  was  recognized,  the  court 

of  administrators.  inclining  to  the  view  that  such  power  ex- 

5  Goods  of  Darke,  1  Sw.  &  Tr.  516;  ists  at  common  law:  Deringer  i-.  Derin- 
Wms.  Ex.  [229].  ger,  5  Houst.  416,  430. 

6  Wms.  Ex.  [228],  citing  1  Bla.  Coram.  «  President,  &c.  /•.  Browne,  supra. 
477;    Com.   Dig.    Administrator,   B.   2;  ^  Kirkpatrick's  Will,  22  N.  J.  Eq.  463. 
Wentw.  Ex.,  c.  1,  p.  39,  and  adding :  "  The  i"  Porter  v.  Trail,  30  N.  J.  Eq.  106. 


510  THE   GRANT   OF   LETTERS   TESTAMENTARY.  §  234 

to  act  as  executor  ;  so  in  New  Jersey ;  ^  and  such  corporations 
may  now  be  found  in  several  States,  permitted  to  exercise  execu- 
tory functions  in  connection  with  trust  funds.^    It  has 
firm  as'  also  bccn  held  that  a  firm  may  be  nominated  as  ex- 

executors.  ecutors,  and  that  in  such  case  letters  testamentary 
will  be  granted  to  the  individual  members  of  the  firm.^  And  so 
of  a  corporation  sole :  the  individual  composing  it  may  be  ad- 
mitted as  executor.* 

§  234.  Acceptance  or  Refusal  of  the  Office  of  Executor.  —  At 
common  law,  and  in  those  of  the  States  in  which  the  authority  of 
the  executor  is  recognized  as  emanating  from  the  will  without  a 
Executor  formal  grant   of   letters   testamentary,  the   question 

nominated        whether  a  Dcrson  named  in  the  will  as  executor  has 

may  reiiise  ^ 

the" office,  qj.  ^j^g  ^ot  acccptcd  the  office  is  sometimes  difficult  of 

solution.  He  cannot,  of  course,  be  compelled  to  accept  the  ex- 
ecutorship, since  it  is  a  private  office  of  trust  named  by  the  testa- 
but  may  be  tor,  and  not  by  the  law ;  he  may  refuse,  even  if  in  the 
compelled  to      lifetime  of  the  testator  he  has  agreed  to  accept  the 

accept  or  o  i 

refuse.  office.^     But  the  ordinary  was  empowered  by  statute  ^ 

to  convene  before  him  any  person  named  as  executor  in  a  testa- 
ment, "to  the  intent  to  prove  or  refuse  the  testament";  if  he 
appear,  either  on  citation  or  voluntarily,  and  pray  time  to  con- 
sider, the  ordinary  in  former  times  might  grant  letters  ad  colli- 
gendum, though  this  practice  became  obsolete ;  but  if  he  appear 
and  refuse  to  act,  or  if  he  fail  to  appear,  administration  cu7n 
testamento  annexo  will  be  granted  to  another.  By  a  later  statute,'^ 
it  is  provided  that,  if  an  executor  appointed  in  a  will  die  without 
having  taken  probate,  and  whenever  an  executor  is  cited  and  does 
not  appear  to  the  citation,  the  representation  to  the  testator  and 
the  administration  of  his  estate  shall  be  committed  in  like  manner 
Rif'ht  to  refuse  ^s  if  such  pcrsou  had  not  been  appointed  executor.^ 
may  be  lost.  rp^g  v\^\t  to  rcfusc  may  be  lost  by  the  executor,  if  he 
do  any  act  which  amounts  to  administration  ;  for  if  he  once  ad- 

1  Camden  SafeD.&T.  Co.  v.  Ingham,  4  Bing.  686,  704,  per  Best,  C.  J  :  Dun- 
40  N.  J.  Eq.  3,  4.  ning  v.  Ocean   National  Bank,  6   Lans. 

2  Schoul.  Ex.   §  32.     So   in   Pennsyl-     296,  298. 

vania,  New  York,  and  Missouri.  "  21  Hen.  VIII.  c.  5,  §  8. 

3  In  re  Fernie,  6  Notes  Cas.  657.  ^  21  &  22  Vict.  c.  95,  §  16. 

4  Wms.  Ex.  [229],  and  authorities.  »  Wms.   Ex.    [275],   citing   Goods    of 

5  Wms.  Ex.  [274],  citing  Doyle  v.  Noddings,  2  Sw.  &  Tr.  15  ;  Goods  of  Lor- 
Blake,  2  Sch.  &  Lef.  231,  239  ;  Bac.  imer,  2  Sw.  &  Tr.  471  ;  Davis  v.  Davis, 
Abr.  Executors,  E.  9;  Douglass  v.  Forrest,  31  L.  J.,  P.  M.  &  A.  216. 


§  234  ACCEPTANCE    OR   EEFUSAL   OF   THE  OFFICE.  511 

minister,  it  is  considered  that  he  has  already  accepted  the  execu- 
torship, and  the  court  may  compel  him  to  prove  the  will  ;  but  if 
the  court  accept  his  refusal,  notwithstanding  he  may  have  acted, 
the  grant  of  administration  to  another  will  be  valid.  These  two 
rules  are  laid  down  in  England  with  respect  to  what  acts  will  ren- 
der an  executor  compellable  to  take  probate :  First,  „  ,    ^  , 

^  /■  Rules  determm- 

whatever  the  executor  does  with  relation  to  the  goods  ing  acceptance 

,^  p-i  I'll  -ii-or  refusal. 

and  eiiects  of  the  testator,  which  shows  an  mtention 
in  him  to  take  upon  himself   the  executorship,  will    regularly 
amount  to  an  administration ;  Secondly,  whatever  acts  will  make 
a  man  liable  as  executor  de  son  tort  will  be  deemed  an  election  of 
the  executorship.! 

In  the  United  States  this  subject  is,  on  the  one  hand,  of  far 
smaller  importance  than  at  the  common  law,  because  in  most  of 
the  States  an  executor  has  no  authority  to  bind  the  estate  of  his 
testator  without  a  formal  grant  of  letters  testamentary  ;  and  is, 
on  the  other  hand,  more  readily  determined,  since  it  is  mostly 
regulated  by  statutes  .^  But  since  administration  with  the  will  an- 
nexed can  only  be  granted  in  default  of  an  executor  named  in  the 
will,  it  is  necessary  that  the  court,  before  granting  such  adminis- 
tration, shall  be  informed  that  the  executor,  or  all  of  several 
executors  named,'^  have  renounced  the  trust,  or  are  no  formality 
incompetent  to  serve.  No  formality  is  necessary  in  "howacwpt- 
making  such  proof  beyond  compliance  with  the  re-  ance  or  refusal, 
quirements  of  the  statute ;  it  is  sufficient  if  the  intention  to 
renounce  is  clearly  expressed  in  writing,  and  filed  in  the  court,* 
at  any  time  before  he  undertakes  the  office  or  intermeddles  with 
the  estate,^  even  after  propounding  the  will  for  probate,*^  or  being 
sworn  as  executor.''     So  it  has  been  held,  that  there 

.      .  p     ,  Acts  indicating 

may  be  a  valid  renunciation  of  the  executorship  by  acceptance  or 
matter  in  pais,  such,  for  instance,  as  an  express  parol 
consent  to  the  grant  of  letters  with  the  will  annexed  to  another, 
not  entered  of  record ;  ^  and  where  executors  are   appointed   to 

1  Wms.  Ex.  [278],  and  authorities.  Stewart,  59  Mo.  491  ;  Columbus  Ins.  Co. 

2  Generally  providing  for  acceptance  v.  Humphries,  64  Miss.  258,  276. 
within  a  certain  time,  or  renunciation  of  ^  Commonwealth  v.  Mateer,  16  Serg. 
record  in  the  probate  court.  &  R.  416,  418. 

3  For  if  one  or  more  of  several  exec-  ^  Sawj'er  v.  Dozier,  5  Ired.  L.  97. 
utors   qualify,   he   or   they  have  all  the          ^  Mitchell  v.  Adams,  1  Ired.  L.  298. 
powers  which  the  will  confers  upon  the  ^  Miller  i'.  Meetch.  8  Pa.  St.  417. 
whole  number  of  executors :   Philips  v.          8  Thornton  v.   Winston,  4  Leigh,  152, 


512  THE   GRANT   OF   LETTERS   TESTAMENTARY.  §  234 

sell  lands,  a  neglect  to  qualify  \^  prima  facie  evidence  of  a  refusal 
to  act,  and  will  validate  a  sale  made  by  the  acting  executors.^ 
A  renunciation  may  be  inferred  from  the  conduct  of  the  executor 
after  being  informed  of  his  nomination,  without  formal  communi- 
cation from  him.^  But  it  will  appear  later  on,  in  connection  with 
the  subject  of  the  appointment  of  administrators  with  the  will 
annexed,^  that  to  support  the  validity  of  such  appointment  the 
record  should  show  the  renunciation  ;  *  and  an  executor  who  has 
entered  upon  the  discharge  of  his  trust  cannot  afterward  resign 
it,  unless  there  be  authority  for  such  resignation,^  as  is  provided 
Executor  may  by  statutc  in  many  of  the  States.^  For  the  purpose  of 
\o  TovrthT^  granting  letters,  either  testamentary  or  of  adminis- 
wiii,  tration,  the  probate  court  may,  at  the  instance  of  a 

person  interested,  or  perhaps  upon  its  own  motion,  summon  the 
executor  before  it  to  prove  the  will ;  ^  and  as  the  executor  cannot 
and  accept  or  avoid  a  will  by  refusing  to  accept  the  trust,  he  may  thus 
ex™orship.  be  compelled  either  to  accept  or  renounce  it,  so  that 
administration  with  the  will  annexed  may  be  granted.^ 
On  the  other  hand,  one  who  takes  possession  of  a  part  of  the 
goods  of  the  testator,  and  disposes  of  them,  is  liable  as  executor, 
^  ,^  f  although  he  does  not  qualify .^     It  seems  obvious  that 

Death  of  one  ==  i  ^  •  -ii 

named  as  ex-  the  dcatli  of  ouc  nominated  as  executor  in  a  will 
grant  of  letters  before  the  grant  of  letters,  and  a  fortiori  before  the 
eqSentto  probate  of  the  will,  amounts  to  a  renunciation;  and 
renunciation.  .^  -^  j^^^pQ^t-ant  to  remember  this  only  in  those  of  the 
States  in  which  tlie  executor  of  an  executor  succeeds  to  the  ex- 
ecutorship of  the  deceased  executor's  testator :  for  if  the  original 
executor  die  before  completing  the  probate,  he  is  considered  in 
point  of  law  as  intestate  witli  regard  to  the  executorship,  although 
he  may  have  made  a  will,  and  appointed  executors,  and  although 
he  die  after  taking  the  oath,  if  before  the  passing  of  the  grant.^*^ 

157,  citing  earlier  Virginia  cases;  Tlionip-  Cocke,  10  Ark.  169;  Springs  v.  Irwin,  6 

sons  V.  Meek,  7  Leigh,  419,  428;  Ayres  v.  Ired.  27. 

Weed,  16  Conn.  291,  296  e^???.  °  Haigoiul   v.  Wells,   1    Hill,   Ch.  59, 

1  Uldrick  V.  Simpson,  1  S.  C.  283,  286 ;  61  ;  Washington  v.  Blount,  8  Ired.  Eq. 
Robertson  r.  Gain,  2  Humph.  367,  381.  253,  256  ;   Mussault's  Executor,  T.  U.  P. 

2  Solomon   v.  Wixon,  27   Conn.   520,  Charlt.  259. 

526  ;  Marr  v.  Peay,  2  Murph.  84.  «  See  post,  §  273 ;  Schoul.  Ex.  §  531. 

8  Post,  §  245.  "^  Ante,  §  214. 

4  Thompsons  v.  Meek,  7  Leigh,  419  ;  ^  Stebbins  v.  Lathrop,  4  Pick.  33,  41. 

Robertson  v.  McGeoch,  11  Pai.  640;  De  ^  Van  Horner.  Fonda, 5  John. Ch. 388  ; 

Peyster  v.  Clendining,  8  Pai.  295  ;  Jud-  Worth  v.  McAden,  1  Dev.  &  B.  Eq  199. 

son  V.  Gibbons,  5  Wend.  224;  Newton  v.  w  Drayton's  Will,  4  McCord,  46,  52, 


§234 


ACCEPTANCE   OR    REFUSAL   OF   THE   OFFICE. 


51 B 


The  common  law  rule,  according  to  which  the  execu-  states  recog- 
tor's   executor  succeeds  to   the  executorship  of   the  exe'"u^tor's  exe- 
original  testator  ^  is  recognized  in  Florida,^  Georgia,^  tor^Jf  origtnai'" 
North  Carolina,^  South  Carolina,'^  and  perhaps  some  testator. 
other  States  ;  ^  but  in  most  of  tliem  this  doctrine  is  repudiated, 
either  by  statute  or  the  decision  of  courts.' 

An  executor  nominated   in  the  will,  who   has  re-  Executor nomi- 
nounccd,  may  retract  his   renunciation,  and  assume  "|^[f,ie"j^eyrt 
the  office  at  any  time  before  the  grant  of  letters  testa-  graut  of  letters. 
mentary  to  other  executors,  or  of  letters  of  administration  with 
the  will  annexed.^     So  if  an  acting  executor  has  been  Renunciation 
removed  for  cause,^  or  died,!*^  the  renunciation  may  "euicted  on 
be  retracted,  and  letters  granted  as  if  it  had  not  been  femoUT  of 
made ;  ^^  and,  in  the  absence  of  statutory  regulation  fg™"J.^'^  "* 
to  the  contrary,  one  of  several  executors  named  in  a  Q„g  ^^  several 
will,  not  taking    letters  testamentary  when   his   co-  ^yaHf'°rft«'' 
executors  do,   may  come   in   at  any  time   afterward  co-executors. 
and  do  so.^     But  where  there  is  obiection  to  one  of  P''*^  '«*"^  »f , 

«'  letters  must  be 

several  executors  named,  the  issue  of   letters  testa-  suspended  as 

to  all  if  one  is 

mentary  must  be  suspended  as  to  all  until  the  de-  objected  to. 


quoting  from  Toller  on  Executors  [49], 
and  authorities  cited  by  that  author. 

1  Wms.  Ex.  [254]  ;  Wentw.  Ex  461 ; 
post,  §  350. 

■^  Hart  V.  Smith,  20  Fla.  58. 

3  Bureli  V.  Burch,  19  Ga.  174,  183. 
But  see  Windsor  v.  Bell,  61  Ga.  671,  675. 

•1  Roanoke  Navigation  Co.  v.  Green,  3 
Dev.  434,  holding  that  the  principle  does 
not  apply  if  the  original  testator  desig- 
nated a  successor  in  case  of  the  death  of 
his  executor.  And  the  executor  may  re- 
nounce the  executorship  of  the  original 
estate,  and  retain  tiiat  of  his  own  testa- 
tor: Worth  V.  McAden,  1  Dev.  &  B.  Eq. 
199. 

5  Drayton's  Will,  4  McCord,  46 ;  Lay 
i:  Lay,  10  S.  C.  208,  220 ;  Reeves  v.  Tap- 
pan,  21  S.  C.  1 ;  the  doctrine  is  now,  how- 
ever, regulated  by  statute :  Laws,  1880, 
p.  363,  no.  309. 

6  See  post,  §  350,  where  tlie  subject  is 
more  fully  discussed. 

'  Post,  §  350  ;  Schoul.  Ex.  §  43 ;  3 
Re<lf.  on  Wills,  240,  §  33.  The  States  of 
Arkansas,  Delaware,  Kansas,  Kentucky 
(but  see  Carroll  v.  Connett,  2  J.J.  Marsh. 

VOL.  I. —  33 


195),  Maine,  Massachusetts,  Michigan, 
Minnesota,  Missouri,  Nevada,  New  Hamp- 
shire. New  Jersey,  Ohio,  Oregon,  Rhode 
Island,  Texas,  Vermont,  Virginia,  West 
Virginia,  Wisconsin,  and  probably  others, 
have  abolished  the  doctrine  of  the  trans- 
mission of  the  executorship  to  the  exec- 
utor's executor. 

8  Robertson  v.  McGeoch,  11  Pal.  640; 
Taylor  v.  Tibbats,  13  B.  Mon.  177  ;  Casey 
V.  Gardiner,  4  Bradf  13  ;  Davis  v.  Inscoe, 
84  N.  C.  .396,  402,  citing  Wood  v.  Sparks, 
1  Dev.  &  Bat.  389.  A  renunciation  prior 
to  the  death  of  the  testator,  for  a  con- 
sideration and  against  the  testator's  will, 
is  of  no  legal  effect :  Staunton  v.  Parker, 
19  Hun,  55,  60. 

9  Codding  V.  Newman,  3  Th.  &  C.  364. 

10  Dempsey's  Will,  Tuck.  51. 

11  Perry  v.  DeWolf,  2  R.  I.  103,  108; 
Judson  I'.  Gibbons,  5  Wend.  224,  227. 

1^  Savage,  J.,  in  Judson  r.  Gibbons, 
supra,  citing  Toller,  68.  9;  Wankford  c. 
Wankford,  1  Salk.  299  ;  5  Co.  28  a  ;  9  Co. 
97.  See  also  Matter  of  Maxwell,  3  N.  J. 
Eq.  011,614. 


514  THE   GRANT   OF   LETTERS    TESTAMENTARY.  §  234 

termination  of   the   objection. ^     A  widow  named    as    executrix 
has  bee] I  allowed  to  renounce  the  executorship  and 

One  named  as  ,.„  ,••,,•  -ii       xi  ■^^  „    ^,1  .2 

executrix  may    quality   as    administratrix   with    the  will    annexed , 
lakeTetTerTof     aiid   the   act  of   qualifying   as  administrator  before 
administration.  ^^,^^^  ^f  ^^le  will  has  been  held  not  to  constitute  a 
renunciation  of  the  right  to  qualify  as  executor  on  production 
of  the  will.^ 

1  McGregor  v.  Buel,  24  N.  Y.  166.  ^  Thornton  v.  Winston,  4  Leigh,  152. 

2  Briscoe  r.  WickUffe,  G  Dana,  157, 1G9. 


§  235  PRINCIPLES    GOVERNING   GRANT   OF    LETTERS.  515 


CHAPTER   XXVI. 


LETTERS     OF    ADMINISTRATION. 


§    235.     Principles    governing    the    Grant    of    General    Letters    of 
Administration.  —  Administration  is  granted  upon  the  estates  of 
persons  dying  intestate,  and,  cum  testamento  annexo,  Letters  of  ad- 
upoii  the  estates  of  those  who  left  a  will,  but  no  execu-  may "^ue  granted 
tor  competent  or  willing  to  assume  the  office.     Before  cin°be^ap'^°'^ 
letters  of  administration  can  properly  be  granted,  there  P(""ted. 
must  be  proof  to  the  satisfaction  of  the  probate  court  that  the 
intestate  died  while  domiciled  within  the  territorial  jurisdiction  of 
such  court,  leaving  property  ;  or  that  he  died  elsewhere,  leaving 
property  within  such  jurisdiction.     If  he  left  a  will,  it  must  also 
be  shown  that  there  is  no  executor  competent  or  willing  to  exe- 
cute it.^     The  grant  of  letters  of  administration  generally,  after 
the  death  of  the  executor  of  a  testate  estate,  instead  of  letters  cum 
testamento  annexo,  has  been  held  void.^ 

Aside  from  the  statutory  regulations,  which  in  every  State  de- 
termine what  persons  are  entitled  to  the  administration,  and  which 
of  course  must  be  observed  in  appointing  an  administrator  to 
office,  the  discretion  vested  in  probate  courts  in  this  respect  is  to 
be  governed  by  well  known  general  principles.  The  Administration 
most  important  of  these  is,  that  administration  should  if  committed  to 

^_  '  _  the  ultimate 

be  committed  to  those  who  are  the  ultimate  or  residu-  beneficiaries  of 
ary  beneficiaries  of  the  estate,  —  those  to  whom  the 
property  will  go  after  administration.  To  secure  to  them  the  right 
to  administer  is  the  paramount  object  of  the  statutes  fixing  the 
order  of  preference,  and  constitutes  the  aim  and  intention  of  courts 
in  the  exercise  of  such  discretion  as  is  vested  in  them.  It  is  obvi- 
ous that  those  who  will  reap  the  benefit  of  a  wise,  speedy,  and 
economical  administration,  or,  on  the  other  hand,  suffer  the  conse- 
quences of  waste,  improvidence,  or  mismanagement,  have  the  high- 
est interest  and  most  influential  motive  to  administer  properly. 
Hence  it  is  said  that  the  right  to  administer  follows  the  right  to 

'  Ante,  §  234 ;  fost,  §  245.  -  Fields  v.  Carlton,  75  Ga.  554,  560. 


516  LETTERS   OF    ADMINISTRATION.  §  235 

the  personal  property ,i  —  a  rule  the  binding  force  of  which  is 
recognized  in  America,^  as  well  as  in  England.^  The  correlative 
of  the  rule  is  equally  true,  —  that  administration  should  not  be 
granted  to  one  whose  interests  are  adverse  to  the  estate.* 

The  prominence  of  the  right  of  the  surviving  to  administer 
the  estate  of  a  deceased  spouse,  is  strongly  corroborative  of  the 
validity  of  this  rule.  In  England  the  right  belongs  to 
Si'fii'i  af  the  husband  exclusively  of  all  other  persons,  and  the 
conuiiu.i  law.  ^^^^.^  ^^  probate  has  no  power  or  election  to  grant  it  to 
any  other.^  ''The  foundation  of  this  claim  has  been  variously 
stated,"  says  Williams.  "  By  some  it  is  said  to  be  derived  from 
the  statute  of  31  Edward  III.,  on  the  ground  of  the  husband's 
being  'the  next  and  most  lawful  friend  '  of  his  wife ;  ^  while  there 
are  other  authorities  which  insist  that  the  husband  is  entitled  at 
common  law  jure  mariti,  and  independently  of  the  statutes.^  But 
tlie  right,  however  founded,  is  now  unquestionable,  and  is  ex- 
pressly conferred  by  statute."  ^  This  right  is  said  not  to  be  an 
ecclesiastical,  but  a  civil,  right  of  the  husband,  though  adminis- 
tered in  the  court  of  probate.^ 

In  the  United  States  the  right  of  the  surviving  husband  or  wife 
to  administer  on  the  deceased  spouse's  estate  is  generally,  but  not 
Husband  or  universally,  accorded  by  statute ;  and  whether  the  rea- 
widowhas first    ^^^^  ^^  ioMwdi  in  the  husband's  marital  right  to  the 

rii^iit   to  3.0." 

miuister.  wife's  personalty,  extending  in  some  States   to  her 

choses  in  action,!*^  (^,  j^  any  of  the  other  causes  suggested,!^  it  is 

1  The  inclination  of  English  courts  is  Owings  v.  Bates,  9  Gill,  463,  466  ;  see  post, 

so  strong  in  this  direction,  that   they  per-  §  242. 

niitted  the  spirit  of  this  rule  to  prevail  &  Wins.  Ex.  [409],  citing  Humphrey  r. 

over  the  letter  of  a  statute  preferring  the  Bullen,  1  Atk.  458;  Sir  George   Sands's 

next   of    kin    to   the  residuary    legatee:  Case,   3    Salk.    22;    Elliott    v.    Gurr,    2 

Thomas  v.  Butler,  1  Ventr.  217,  219.  Phillim.   16. 

•i  Thornton  v.  Winston,  4  Leigh,  152  ;  «  3  g^lk.  22,  supra;    Elliott   v.   Gurr, 

Sweezey  v.  Willis,  1  Bradf.  495 ;  Leverett  supra. 

V  Disniukes,  10  Ga.  98  ;  Long  v.  Huggins,  '^  Com.  Dig.  Administrator,  B.  6;  Watt 

72  Ga.  776  ;  Cutchin  v.  Wilkinson,  1  Call,  v.  Watt,  3  Ves.  244.  247. 

1,   6;    Anderson    v.    PoUer,    5   Cal.    63;  8  29  Car.  II.  c.  3,  §  25. 

Bieber's  Appeal,  11  Pa.  St.  157, 161  ;  Lan-  »  Wms.  Ex.  [410J,  and  authorities, 

gan  V.   Bowman,  12  Sm.   &   M.  715,  717  ;  ^^  Before  the  recent  sweeping  changes 

Cottle  V.  Vanderheyden,  11  Abb.  Pr.  n.  s.  in    the   law    respecting  the    property    of 

17,  20  ;  Jordan  v.  Ball,  44  Miss.  194,  201 ;  married   women  :  Whitaker  v.  Whitaker, 

Kirkpatrick's    Will,    22   N.   J.    Eq.   463;  6   John.   112,    117;   Hoskins  v   Miller,   2 

Dalrymple  v.  Gamble,  66  Md.   298,   306,  Dev.  360,  .362  :   Doniiington  v.  Mitchell,  2 

307  ;  .Tohnson  v.  Johnson,  15  R.  I.  109.  N.  J  Eq.  243  ;  Byrne  v.  Stewart,  3  Desaus. 

3' Wms  Ex.  [418],  citing  Goods  of  Gill,  135,  143;    Olmsted   v.   Keyes,    85   N.  Y. 

1  Haeff.  .341,  342.  593,  602. 

*  Estate   of  Heron,  6  Phila.   87,   89;  11  Mr.   Williams  says,   in   note  (e),  p. 


§  236  THE  husband's  right  to  appointment.  517 

undeniable  that  they  have,  beside  their  personal  interest  in  the 
estate,  the  control  of  the  interests  of  the  minor  heiis,  where  there 
are  such,  being  the  natural  guardians  of  their  persons  and  estates, 
and  thus  unite  in  themselves,  as  the  surviving  centre  and  head  of 
the  family,  a  greater  interest  in  the  estate  than  any  other  single 
person ;  in  all  cases,  at  least,  where  the  deceased  leaves  minor 
children.  The  exceptions  to  the  right  of  husband  or  wife  to  ad- 
minister still  further  corroborate  the  principle  upon  which  the 
rule  is  founded.     It  is  held,  in  several  States,  that  Unless  the 

•    1  i  1  X         r    j-i        propurtv,  bv 

where  by  ante-nuptial  agreement  the  property  o±  tlie  ante-nuVtiai 
husband  or  wife  does  not  pass  to  the  survivor,  he  or  de'cenciTto 
she  is  not  entitled  to  the  administration  ;  ^  but  if  it  "'''*'''*• 
gave  the  wife  a  power  of  disposal  of  her  separate  property  which 
she  has  not  executed,  or  where  a  devise  to  a  trustee  for  the  wife's 
use  ends  with  her  death,  the  husband's  right  to  administer  is  not 
affected.2     So,  too,  in  Louisiana,  the  beneficial  heir,  whether  pres- 
ent or  represented,  is  entitled  to  administration  in  preference  to 
the  surviving  husband  or  wife  ;"  but  the  natural  tutor  has  as  such 
the  right  to  administer  the  estate  of  the  deceased  spouse,  unless 
creditors  or  adult  heirs  demand  the  appointment  of  an  adminis- 
trator;'* and  this  although  the  surviving  spouse  has  the  usufruct 
of  the  community  property  during  life." 

§  236.  The  Husband's  Right  to  Appointment.  —  It  appears  from 
the  preceding  section  that  in  England  the  husband's  right  to  admin- 
ister on  the  estate  of  his  deceased  wdfe  is  absolute,  being  expressly 
confirmed  by  statute.^     The  statutes  of  many  of  the  American 

[410],  that  otliers  have  siipposetT  tliat  the  ^  i^art  r.    Soward,    12  B.  Mon.  391  ; 

husband  is  entitled  as  next  of  kin  to   the  Payne  v.  Payne,  11  B.  Mon.  lo8. 

wife,  and  cites  Fortre  v.  Fortre,  1  Show.  3  Oode,  art.  1121  ;  Succession  of  Wil- 

351,  and  Kex  i>.  Betteswortli,  2  Stra.  1111,  lianison,  3  La.  An.  202. 

1112 ;  "  but,"  he  adds,  "  it  seems  clear  that  *  Labranche  v.  Trepagnier,  4  La.   An. 

the  husband  is  not  of  kin  to  his  wife  at  5o8. 

all."      Tliere    are    numerous    American  ^  Succession  of  Brinkman,  5  La.  An. 

cases  holding  that  husband  and  wife  are  27. 

not  of  kin  to  each  other:  Green  r.  Hud-  ^  29  Car.  IL  c.  3,  §25,  which  enacts  that 

son  R.  H.,  32  Barb.  25,  28 ;  Lucas  >:  N.  Y.  the  Statute  of  Distributions  (22  &  23  Car. 

Central    R.  R.,  21   Barb.  245;  Wil,«on  r.  IL  o.  10)  "  shall  not  extend  to  the  estates 

Frazier,  2   Humph.  30;  Storer  r.  Wheat-  of  femes  covert  tiiat  shall  die  intestate, 

ley,  1  Pa.  St.  506  ;  see  cases  cited  by  Per-  but    that   their   husbands    may   demand 

kins  in  Wms.  Ex.  [410],  note  (e).     Post,  and  have  administration  of  their  rights, 

§  423,  and  cases  cited.  credits,  and   other  personal  estates,  and 

1  Fowler  v.  Kell,  14  Sm.  &  M.  G8 ;  Ward  recover  and  enjoy  the  same  as  they  might 

I'.  Thompson,  0  Gill  &  J  349  ;  Bray  r.  Dud-  have    done   before   the   making   of    said 

geon,  6  Munf.  132  ;  Maurer  v.  Naill,  5  Md.  act":  Wms.  Ex.  [410]. 
824 ;  Govane  v.  Govane,  1  Har.  &  M.  34(5. 


518  LETTERS    OF    ADMINISTRATION.  §  236 

States  embody  the  same  or  siiuilar  ])rovisioiis ;  but  in  others  the 
principle  that  administration  should  follow  the  right  to  the  per- 
sonal property  prevails  over  the  husband's  absolute  right.  Thus, 
Statutes  of  the  liusband  is  not  entitled  to  administer  the  wife's 
depi^ve'hus-  estate  to  the  exclusion  of  her  children,  if  they  inherit;^ 
bami  of  n-iit     j^^^.  jf  j^g  jg  excluded  from  any  share  in  her  estate ;  ^ 

to  aaiiiinister  ''  ' 

in  certain  cases,  but  unlcss  the  statute  cxprcssly  or  by  necessary  impli- 
cation deprive  him  of  this  right,  it  cannot  be  denied  him  ;3  and  if 
any  other  person  shall  administer,  he  is  considered  in  equity,  with 
respect  to  the  residue  after  paying  the  debts,  as  a  trustee  for  the 
husband  or  his  representatives.* 

It  has  been  held  that  the  right  of  the  husband  to  administer 
Husband  mav  ^^^^J  ^^  transferred  by  him  to  another,  and  that  letters 
transfer  iu9        ^^r\\\  j^g  p-i'anted  by  the  probate  court  to  liis  nominee  ;^ 

rif;ht  to  ad-  "  jf  ^  ' 

minister.  and  that  upon  his  death,  while   administering  upon 

^mUii'strator  ^^^^  estate  of  his  pre-deceased  wife,  his  executor  or  ad- 
preferred  to       ministrator  is  entitled  to  administration  de  bonis  non 

wife  s  next  of 

kin.  of  the  wife's  estate,  in  preference  to  her  next  of  kin.^ 

So  the  husband  is  entitled  to  administer  although  he  be  a  non- 
resident,^ and  to  retain  the  wife's  personal  property  without 
administration,^  whether  a  resident  or  not.^ 

That  a  marriage  was  voidable,  does  not  militate  against  the 
husband's  right  to  administer  the  wife's  personal  estate,  unless 
Hnsband  is  sentcncc  of  nullitj  was  pronounced  before  her  death  ;^'^ 
thou^iirthe  but  a  marriage  absolutely  void  ah  initio  confers  no 
been  voidabir  riglits  upon  the  husband.^^  So,  also,  notwithstanding 
but  not  if  void.    ^  divorcc  tt  meusa  et  thoi'o,^^  or  his  abandonment  of 

1  Randall  f.  Shrader,  17  Ala.  333,  .335  ;  be   witliin   the    discretion   of  the  court. 

Goodrich  1-.  Treat,  3  Col.  408,  411.  That  he  is  entitled,  although  a  non-resi- 

^  See  authorities,  §  235,  p.  517,  note  1.  dent,  in  those  States  in  which  nnn-resi- 

3  Fairbanks  I'.  Hill.  3  Lea,  732  ;  Sliuin-  dence  is  a  disqualification,  as  indicated 

way  V.  Cooper,  16  Barb.  556,  560;  Clark  by  Redfield  (3  Redf.  Wills,  81,  note  8), 

V.  Clark,  6  W.  &  S.  85.  is  not  borne  out  by  the  authority  cited: 

*  Hoppiss  V.  Eskridge,  2  Ired.  Kq.  54;  Sarkie's  Appeal,  2  Pa.  St.  157,  159. 
Weeks  y.  Jewett,45  N.  H.  540  ;  Williams's  ^  Robins  r.  McClure,  100  N.  Y.  328. 

Appeal,  7  Pa.  St.  259;  Allen  i-.  Wilkins,  ^  Willis   v.  Jones,  42  Md.  422:   Hub- 

3  Allen,  321.  bard  /-.  Barcus,  38  Md.  175. 

^  Patterson  v.  High,   8  Ired.   Eq.  52,         i"  Wms    Ex.    [410]  ;   Elliott  v.  Gurr,  2 

54.     By  statute  in  California:  Code  Civ.  Pliillim  19;  Whiter    Lowe,  1  Redf.  376; 

Pr.  §  1.365.  Parker's  Appeal,  44  Pa.  St.   309 ;  Smitli 

6  Hendren  v.  Colgin,  4  Munf.  231.  v.  Smith,  1  Tex.  621. 

'   Weaver  r.   Chace,  5  R.  I.  356.     It         "  Browning  i-.  Renne,  2  Phillim,  69. 
should  be  noted,  however,  that  the  ap-         ^^  Clark  v.  Clark,  6  \V  &  S.  85 
pointment  of  a  non-resident  was  held  to 


§  237  THE  widow's  eight  to  appointment.  519 

the  wife,  he  is  entitled  to  administer  himself,  or  nominate  to  the 
register  a  fit  person  to  be  appointed.^ 

§  237.  The  Widow's  Right  to  Appointment.  —  Under  the  English 
statute,^  the  ordinary  is  directed  to  grant  administration  "  to  the 
widow  or  the  next  of  kin,  or  to  both,"  at  his  discretion  ;  and  al- 
thongh,  by  the  seventy-third  section  of  the  Court  of  Probate  Act,^ 
the  power  of  the  probate  court  in  making  grants  of  administra- 
tion, and  deciding  to  whom  they  shall  be  granted,  has  been  much 
enlarged,  yet  even  under  it  the  court  is  precluded  from  making  a 
joint  grant  to  a  widow  and  one  of  the  persons  entitled  to  distribu- 
tion (but  not  next  of  kin).*  If  a  joint  grant  is  to  be  made  to 
the  widow  and  one  of  the  next  of  kin,  all  the  other  next  of  kin 
must  consent  thereto ;  ^  and  the  modern  English  practice  is  to 
favor  the  widow  under  ordinary  circumstances.'' 

In  the  United  States,  the  widow  is  usually  preferred  to  all 
others  as  administratrix  of  her  deceased  husband,  but  her  claim 
is  neither  so  generally  recoirnizcd,  nor  based  upon  the  „,. 

*-  "^  ^  '  \V  iciow  gener- 

same  ground,  as  that  of  the  husband  to  the  estate  of  a  ally  preferred 
deceased  wife,  but  has  its  basis  in  the  division  of  inter- 
ests between  her  and  the  kindred."  Where  the  widow  and  next 
of  kin  are  placed  in  one  class,  as  for  instance  in  Massachusetts,^ 
Nebraska,^  and  Pennsylvania,^^  administration  may  be  granted,  in 
the  discretion  of  the  court  or  register,  to  the  widow  alone,  or  to 
the  widow  and  one  or  more  of  the  next  of  kin,  or  to  one  or  more 
of  the  next  of  kin  without  the  widow. 

As  the  husband's  right  to  administer  on  the  deceased  wife's 
estate  depends  upon  a  valid  marriage,  so  the  widow,  to  entitle  her 
to  administer  her  husband's  estate,  must  be  the  sur-  widow  of  law- 
viving  wife  of  an  actual  marriage.^^  Hence,  one  who  onh^entlued  to 
cohabited  with  a  man  who  had  a  wife  living  from  administer. 
whom  he  was  not  divorced,  although  unknown  to  her,  and  although 


1  Coover's   Appeal,   52   Pa.    St.    427,  30;     Goddard    r.    Goddard,    3    Phillim. 
430;  to  similar  effect,  Nusz  v.  Grove,  27  637. 

Md.  391 ;  Altemus's  Case,  1  Ashm.  49.  "  Ante,  §  235 ;  Schoul.  §  99. 

2  21  Hen.  VIII.  c.  5,  §  3.  »  Cobb   v.   Newcomb,   \o  Pick.   336  ; 

3  20  &  21  Vict.  c.  77.  McGooch  v.  McGooch,  4  Mass.  318. 

*  Wins.   Ex.    [416],   citing   Goods   of  9  Comp.  St.  Neb.  1887,  ch.  23,  §  178. 

Browning,  2  Sw.  &  Tr.  634.  w  McClellan's  Appeal,  16  Pa.  St.  110, 

5  Goods  of  Newbold,  L.  R.  1  P.  &  D.  115;Gyger's    Estate,    65    Pa.    St.    311, 

285.  313. 

•5  Stretch  v.  Pynn,  1   Cas.  Temp.  Lee,  "  Byrnes  v.  Dibble,  5  Redf.  383,  385. 


520  LETTERS    OF   ADMINISTRATION.  §  237 

Divorced  ^vife  shc  fullj  bolicved  liorsclf  to  be  his  lawful  wife,  is  not 
not  entiiieci.  entitled  to  administer;^  nor  one  divorced  a  vinculo? 
A  divorce  a  menaa  et  thoro  does  not,  as  appears  from  the  prc- 
Divorce  (T  Ceding  scction,  deprive  the  husband  of   the  right  to 

viensa  et  iiinro    administer,  nor  destroy  the  relation  of  marriage,  but 

does  not  dis-  ■>  j  »    5 

qualify.  merely  suspends  some  of  the  obligations  arising  out 

of  that  relation ;  and  the  right  of  succession  is  not  impaired.^  It 
seems,  therefore,  that  in  such  case,  and  where  the  marriage  was 
voidable,  but  not  dissolved  during  the  husband's  lifetime,*  the 
widow's  right  to  administer  is  not  affected ;  and  such  right  is 
restored  by  the  annulling  of  a  decree  of  divorce  a  vinculo  after  the 
Abandonment  husband's  dcath.^  But  whcre  a  widow  had  left  her 
of  husband,  husbaud,  renouncing  all  conjugal  intercourse  with 
him,  a  considerable  time  before  his  death,  her  right  was  held  to 
and  divorce  a  b^-vc  been  abandoned ;  ^  and  a  wife,  divorced  a  mensa 
mensa  for  adui-  g^  tliovo  for  adultery  on  her  part,  forfeits,  it  should 

terv  held  to  ^  ''  .    .  .        ^  . 

disquaiif}'.  scem,  her  right  to  the  administration.'''  And  it  has 
already  been  remarked,  that  where,  by  ante-nuptial  agreement,  or 
for  any  other  reason,  the  widow  is  not  entitled  to  any  of  the  prop- 
erty of  the  husband,  she  also  loses  her  right  to  administer  it.^ 

Where  discretion  is  vested  in  the  court  granting  letters  of  ad- 
ministration, it  is  generally  exercised  in  favor  of  the  widow. 
Discretion  is  unless  some  good  rcason  be  shown  demanding  a  differ- 
generaiiy  exer-  ^^^  coursc.^     If  the  onc  of  those  entitled  be  compe- 

cised  ni  favor  ^ 

of  widow.  tent,  and  the  other  not,  the  appointment  will  of  course 
be  confined  to  the  one  competent ;  but  if  neither  the  widow  nor 

1  O'Gara  v.  Eisenlohr,  38  N.  Y.  296.  2  Dobson  v.  Butler,  17  Mo.  88  ;  Ejan 

But  see   Smith   v.    Smith,   1   Tex.   G21,  f.  Ryan, '2  Piiillim.  832. 
granting  letters  to  a  widow  who  had  in-  ^  pgr  Rogers,  J.,  in  Clark  v.  Clark,  6 

nocently  married  a  man  who  had  a  wife  W.  &  S.  85,  87  ;  Nusz  i".  Grove,  27  Md. 

then  living.     The  decision  is  based  upon  391,    400,    citing    Slatter    v.    Slatter,    1 

a  provision  of  the  Spanish  law,  according  Younge  &  C.  28;  Lambell  v.  Lambell,  3 

to  which  a  person  marrying  in  good  faith  Hagg  568  ;  Chappell  v.  Chappell,  7  Eccl. 

shall    enjoy    the   rights   of  a   legitimate  R.  451. 

spouse;  and  "putative  matrimony  may  *  Parker's   Appeal,   44  Pa.    St.   309; 

be  converted  into  a  true  marriage,  if,  after  White  v.  Lowe,  1  Redf  376. 
the  celebration,  the  impediment  ceases  to  ^  Boyd's  Appeal,  38  Pa.  St.  246. 

exist.     In  the  case,  for  example,  that  a  ^  Odiorne's  Appeal,  54  Pa.  St.  175. 

man  be  married  to  a  second  wife,  the  first  "^  Pettifer  v.  James,  Bunb.  16  ;  Goods 

living,  if  afterward  this  one  die,  the  sec-  of  Davies,  2  Curt.  628. 
ond  wife,  who  was  ignorant  of  the  first  ®  Ante,  §  235,  and  authorities  under 

marriage  of  her  husband,  may,  at  her  p.  517,  note  1. 
pleasure,  select  either  to  live  with  him,  ^  Sclioul.  Ex.  §§  99,  100. 

or  be  separated    and   marry   another " : 
lb.,  p.  629.     See  also,  ante,  §  107. 


§  238  RIGHT    OF    NEXT    OF    KIN   TO    APPOINTMENT.  521 

next  of  kill  be  under  legal  disability,  their  personal  suitableness 
is  to  be  considered  :  if  the  widow  is  evidently  unsuitable,  some 
other  person  (within  the  class  from  which  the  court  may  select) 
will  be   appointed.^     Coverture   disqualifies  a  woman  c„^,gr(„re  jjg 
as  administratrix:   in   some  of  the  States  ;2  where  it  qualities  in 

isoine  States. 

does  not,  the  remarriage  of  the  widow  is  not  fer  se  an 
objection  to  lier  appointment;-^  but  if  administration  be  also  de- 
manded by  a  child,  the  second  marriage  might  be  a  circumstance 
inducing  the  court  to  give  pveferencc  to  the  child.* 

§  238.  Right  of  Next  of  Kin  to  the  Appointment.  —  It  would  be 
unprofitable  to  rci)eat  a  statement  of  the  rules  by  which  the  pro- 
pinquity of  kin  is  ascertained  in  order  to  designate  their  prefer- 
ence in  the  right  to  administer.  They  are  given  very  fully  in 
Williams  on  Executors,^  as  applicable  under  the  English  statutes, 
which  are  copied  or  substantially  followed  in  most  American 
States ;  and  in  an  earlier  chapter  of  this  treatise,^  the  principle  is 
indicated  according  to  which  the  property  of  the  intestate  de- 
scends, or  is  distributable,  in  so  far  as  the  course  of  descent  is  not 
fixed  by  the  statute  eo  nomine.  Under  the  fundamen-  j^.  ,  ^  ^^  ^^ 
tal  principle  that  the  rio-ht  of  administration  follows  niinister  in 

^  ^  °  .  next  of  kin. 

the  right  of  property,  the  rules  there  pointed  out  are 
equally  applicable  here.  The  order  in  which  next  of  kin  are 
entitled  to  administer  in  England  is  recapitulated  by  Williams  as 
follows,  showing  certain  exceptions  to  the  rule  of  comi)utation 
respecting  succession  to  inheritances:  "In  the  first  place  the 
children  and  their  lineal  descendants  to  the  remotest  degree ;  and 
on  the  failure  of  children,  the  parents  of  the  deceased  are  entitled 
to  the  administration ;  then  follow  brothers  and  sisters ;  then 
grandfathers  and  grandmothers ;  then  uncles  or  nephews,  great- 
grandfathers and  great-grandmothers,  and  lastly  cousins."  In 
States  where  the   husband   is  entitled  to  his  wife's  ^,    ,    ,     , 

The  husband 

property,  if  the  next  of  kin  be  a  married  woman  and  of  a  female 
she  renounces,  the  grant  is  made  to  the  husband  ;  for  entitled  if  she 
he  has  an  interest,  and  the  grant  must  follow  the  in-  '■^".''""*^®- 

1  Smith,  Pr.  L.  70;  Stearns  ?'.  Fiske,  *  Wms.    Ex.    [418],   also    relying   on 
18  Pick.  24,  27  ;  Gary,  Pr.  L.  §  267.  Webb  v.  Needliam,  supra. 

2  See  nnte,  §  232,  as  to  the  effect  of  cov-  °  Page  [419]  et  seq. 
ertiire  upon  executrices,  and  a  list  of  the  ^  Ante,  §  72. 

States  in  which  coverture  disqualifies.  "  Wms.  Ex.  [425],  citing  2  Bia.  Conim. 

3  Schoul.    Ex.   §  100,  citing.  Webb  r.     505. 
Needh.nm,  1  Add.  494. 


522  LETTERS   OF   ADMlNISTIiATION.  §  239 

terest,  and  the  wife  cannot,  by  renouncing,  deprive  her  husband  of 
Error  to  pass  his  right  to  the  grant.^  The  preference  given  by  stat- 
by  next  of  kin    ^g  ^^  ^j^g  ^ext  of  kin  is  obligatory  upon  the  court, 

and  appoint  a  o  ^       i 

stranger.  and  it  is  crror  to  appoint  a  stranger  where  a  son,  who 

is  eligible  and  qualified,  asks  to  be  appointed.^  So  an  adopted 
child  having  a  right  of  inheritance  must  be  appointed  ;  but  other- 
wise, if  it  has  no  interest  in  the  estate.^ 

It  may  happen  that  disqualification  existing  at  the  time  of  the 
decedent's  death  is  removed  before  the  grant  of  let- 
urti'So?" ''  ters.  In  such  case,  letters  should  be  granted  to  the 
application.  ^q^soii  entitled  to  the  same  at  the  time  of  the  applica- 
tion therefor,  although  such  person  was,  at  the  time  of  the  intes- 
tate's death,  disqualified.* 

§  239.  Right  of  Creditors  to  Appointment.  —  It  foUows  from  the 
principle,  repeatedly  stated  above,  of  committing  administration 
In  some  States,  to  thosc  who  havc  the  ultimate  interest  in  the  estate, 
creditorsen-      ^|  ^  crcditors  or  their  nominees  are  preferred  when 

titled  in  insol-      "'^  "'  i  re    •       .    . 

vent  estates;  i\^q  asscts  of  an  estate  are  not  more  than  sufficient  to 
pay  the  debts,  and  funeral  and  administration  expenses.  They  are 
accordingly  preferred  to  the  next  of  kin  in  some  States,^  in  others 
rditer  in  other  their  right  is  subordinate  to  that  of  the  next  of  kin. 
States.  |3^t  superior  to  that  of  other  persons,^  and  the  right  of 

a  creditor  is  generally  recognized  where  neither  husband  or  wife, 
nor  any  of  the  next  of  kin,  will  qualify  ; '  and  it  is  error  to  refuse 
to  appoint  a  creditor  on  the  ground  that  the  debt  is  barred  by 
limitation ;  ^  but  if  those  who  are  preferred  by  statute  are  willing 
to  qualify,  it  is  error  to  appoint  a  creditor.^     It  has  been  held  in 

1  Haynes  v.  Matthews,  1  Sw.  &  Tr.  460.  6  Hoffman  v.  Gold,  8  Gill  &  J.  79,  84. 

2  Hayes  v.  Hayes,  75  Ind.  395,  398.  In  California,  the  court,  in  its  discretion, 

3  Estate  of  McCully,  13  Phila.  296,  may  appoint  the  nominee  of  the  next  of 
holding  that  the  statutes  of  Pennsylvania  kin  in  preference  to  a  creditor :  Estate 
relating  to  the  adoption  of  children,  while  of  Wyche,  Myr.  85.  So  m  Nebraska  : 
conferring   the   right   to  inherit,  do  not  Comp.  St.  1887,  ch.  23,  §  178. 

create   relationship,   and    citing   on   this  '  Mitchel  v.  Lunt,  per  Parsons,  C.  J., 

point  Commonwealth  r.  Nancrede,  32  Pa.  4  Mass.  654,  659;  Royce  v.   Burrell,  12 

St  389   and  Shaper  v.  Eneu,  54  Pa.  St.  Mass.  407,  411 ;  Arnold  v.  Sabin,  1  Cush. 

OQ4       '  525 ;  Lentz  i-.  Pilert,  60  Md.  296. 

4  Griffith  V.  Coleman,  61  Md.  250.  »  Ex  parte  Caig,  T.  U.  P.  Charlt.  159. 

5  Cutlar  y.  Quince,  2  Hayw.  60;  Long  But  see  Succession  of  Sarrazin,  34  La. 
V.  Easly,  13  Ala.  239,  243  (in  Alabama,  An.  1168;  Beauregard  y.  Lampton,  33La. 
when  an  estate  is  reported  insolvent,  the  An.  827. 

administrator  is  removed  and  the  cred-  ^  Haxall  v.  Lee,  2  Leigh,  267  ;  Carthey 

itors  appoint  a  person  to  wind  up  the  es-     v.  Webb,  2  Murph.  268. 
tate) ;  Sturges  v.  Tufts,  R.  M.  Charlt.  17. 


§  240  RIGHT   OF    PUBLIC    ADMINISTRATOR.  523 

North  Carolina,  that  the  assignment  of  a  debt  after  the  death  of 
the  debtor  does  not  constitute  the  assignee  a  creditor  authorizing 
him  to  take  administration/  and  in  Massachusetts  that  a  cause  of 
action  which  does  not  survive  the  debtor  does  not  support  a  claim 
to  administer  on  the  debtor's  estate ;  -  but  in  Maryland  a  niece  by 
marriage,  having  paid  the  funeral  expenses  and  taken  an  assign- 
ment of  the  claim  from  the  undertaker,  was  held  entitled  to  admin- 
istration as  the  sole  creditor.^  In  Texas  ^  and  Virginia^  creditors 
have  no  preference.  In  Louisiana  the  creditor  first  applying  has 
preference  over  one  applying  subsequently,  without  regard  to  the 
dignity  or  magnitude  of  their  respective  claims;^  but  in  Georgia 
the  statute  preferring  him  who  had  the  greatest  interest  was  con- 
strued as  giving  to  a  creditor  of  superior  dignity,  whose  claim 
would  sweep  the  estate,  preference  over  those  who  would  get  noth- 
ing, although  having  claims  greater  in  amount."  The  Administrator 
administrator  of  one  to  whom  the  deceased  was  in-  °*  ^  creditor. 
debted  is  a  creditor,  and  may  be  appointed  to  administer  the  estate 
of  the  deceased  debtor,  although  another  creditor  is  recommended 
by  the  widow,  and  by  creditors  representing  more  than  half  the 
indebtedness  of  the  deceased.^ 

§  240.    Right  of  the  Public  Administrator  to  the  Administration.  — 
It  appears  from  the  consideration  of  the  functions  of  pul)lic  ad- 
ministrators in  a  previous  chapter,^  that  they  are  public  officers  in 
a  sense  different  from  that  in  which  executors  or  administrators 
are  also  considered  public  officers,  in  this,  that  they  are  elected  or 
appointed  directly  by  the  people,  or  the  political  appointing  power, 
and  assume  the  administration  of  estates  ex  officio,  or,  pubiic  admin- 
when   they  receive  their  authority  over  a  particular  ,\ii™ltere^ 
estate  from  the  probate  court,  the  grant  to  them  is  (>ffic^o. 
virtute  officii}^     It  has  also  been  remarked  that  in  two  of  the 

1  Pearce   v.   Castrix,   8  Jones  L.   71.  ^  Ex  parte  Ostendorff,  17  S.  C.  22. 

The  reason  assigned  is,  that  to  allow  such  ^  Ante,  §  180. 

creditor  to  administer  would  be  to  tempt  ^''  In    Alabama   it   was   lield   that  the 

him  to  abuse  the  administrator's  right  of  general  administrator's  miglit  be  a  quasi 

retainer.  office,  with  none  of   the  attributes  of  a 

-  Stebbins  i".  Palmer,  1  Pick.  71,  78;  municipal   office;    but   if  viewed  as    an 

Smith  V.  Sherman,  4  Cush.  408,  412.  office,  it   belongs   to  the  class  of  minor 

3  Lentz  V.  Pilert,  60  Md.  296,  citing  offices  essential  to  the  proper  conduct  of 

English  authorities.  the  government  and  convenience  of  the 

*  Cain  V.  Haas,  18  Tex.  616.  people  which  was  not  disturbed  b}'  the 

5  McCandlish  v.  Hopkins,  6  Call,  208.  reconstruction  of  the  State  after  the  sup- 

^  Succession  of  Beraut,  21  La.  An.  666.  pression   of   the   rebellion:    McGuire   v. 

7  Freeman  i-.  Worrill,  42  Ga.  401.  Buckley,  58  Ala.  120,  131. 


524  LETTERS    OF    ADMINISTRATION^.  §  241 

States^  the  public  administrator  takes  charire  of  estates,  under 
circumstances  pointed  out  by  the  statute,  without  judicial  order, 
thus  conferring  upon  him  quasi  judicial  authority,  subject,  how- 
ever, to  the  control  of  the  probate  court;  while  in  other  States  his 
authority  in  each  particular  estate  is  derived  from  appointment  by 
the  probate  court. 

The  circumstances  under  which  the  public  administrator  is 
entitled  to  appointment,  or  is  preferred  in  the  discretion  of  the 
court,  have  been  fully  discussed  in  connection  with  the  statement 
of  the  functions  of  his  office. 

§  241.  Disqualifications  excluding  from  the  Right  to  Appoint- 
ment. —  The  persons  entitled  to  the  grant  of  administration  ac- 
cording to  the  rules  above  set  forth  may  be  disqualified  by 
statutory  provision,  such  as  infancy,  coverture  of  a  female,  non- 
residence,  etc.,  in  which  case  letters  of  administration  must  be 
Disquaiifica-  granted  to  some  other  person.  It  is  safe  to  assume 
office  of  exec-  that  what  will  disqualify  one  from  acting  as  executor 
"luiimesar"  will  equally  defeat  the  right  to  administer  ;2  but  not 
administrator.  r^\\  persous  Competent  as  executors  are  likewise  cora- 
,     ,  petent  as  administrator.     Thus,  insolvency  has  been 

Insolvencv.  '■  ,  .     . 

held  to  disqualify  one  for  the  office  of  administrator, 
on  the  ground  that  the  beneficiaries  of  the  estate  arc  entitled  to 
the  security  of  an  administrator's  personal  liability,  as  well  as 
that  of  his  bail ;  ^  illiteracy,  because  one  who  can  nei- 
ther read  nor  write  Avould  l)e  forced  to  trust  to  agents, 
and  would  be  at  the  mercy  of  designing  persons,  thereby  exposing 
the  interests  of  the  estate  to  danger  of  loss  from  mismanagement 
„  , .   ,.     ,       and    corruption  ;  ^    and  so  subjection  to  undue  influ- 

Subjection  to  '  '  •'  _  _ 

undue  infiu-       eucc  of  ouc  charged  with  fraudulent  designs  against 

ence.  ^      -k-t  -it  ^      i 

the  estate.^  rv either  poverty  nor  illiteracy,  however, 
is  ordinarily  deemed  to  deprive  one,  otherwise  preferred,  of  the 
right  to  administer  an  estate.^     Another  disqualification  in  ad- 

1  Missouri  and  New  York.  *  Stephenson   v.  Steplienson,  4  Jones 

2  As  to  disqualifications  of  executors,     L.  472. 

see  ante,  §§  230-233.  ^  Stearns  v.  Fiske,  18  Pick.  24. 

3  Cornpropst's  Appeal,  83  Pa.  St.  537.  «  Nusz  v.  Grove,  27  Md.  391  ;  Grecg 
"Insolvency  is  the  state  of  a  person  who,  i>.  Wilson,  24  Ind.  227;  Estate  of  Pa- 
froni  any  cause,  is  unable  to  pay  his  debts  clieco,  23  Cal.  476;  Ballard  v.  Charles- 
in  the  usual  course  of  trade";  a  poor  worth,  1  Bern.  501  ;  Bovversox's  Appeal, 
person  is  not  necessarily  insolvent:  Le-  100  Pa.  St.  434,  437,  followed  in  Wilkey's 
van's  Appeal,  112  Pa,  St.  294,  300,  Appeal,  108  Pa.  St,  567. 


§241 


DISQUALIFICATIONS. 


;25 


ininistrators,  though    nut    in  executors,  or  in  a  loss  Adverse  in- 
degree,  is  that   of  adverse  or    inconsistent   interest.  ^'"■^■^'■ 
Whore,  for  instance,  one  person  re[)rescnts  two  estates  between 
which  litigation  ensues:    in  such  case,  he  woukl  necessarily  be 
both  i)laintiff  and  defendant,  to  the  manifest  detriment  of  justice, 
and  the  jeo[)ardy  of  the  interests  of  one  or  both  the  estates.^    And 
so  it  would  be  highly  impi-oper  to  appoint  one,  whether  (^,.^i„,ants 
next  of  kin  or  not,  who  claims  in  his  own  right  assets  aj;aiiistuie 

'  ...  estate. 

of  the  estate,  or  which  were  in  possession  of  the  intes- 
tate at  the  time  of  his  death,  or  whoso  interests  are  in  antagonism 
to  the  estate.^  Such  considerations  are  not  permitted  to  interfere 
with  the  right  of  the  executor.^  But  in  Indiana  it  is  held  that 
the  law  does  not  forbid  the  appointment  of  the  same  person  to 
administer  two  or  more  estates,  although  there  be  conflicting 
interests.'^ 

What  has  heretofore   been  said  concerning  the  statutory  dis- 
qualifications of  executors,^  applies  with  equal  force  to  adminis- 
trators.    In  most  of  the  States  an  infant  can  neither  infancy. 
act   as,   nor    nominate,  an    administrator ;  ^  married  Coverture. 
women  are  in  many  of  the  States  disqualified,'^  and  likewise  iiou- 


1  In  some  of  the  States  tlie  statute 
inhibits  sucli  iiiuoiisistent  appointments  ; 
in  otiiers,  courts  decide  tiietn  to  be  im- 
proper and  reprehensible :  State  u.  Bid- 
lingmaier,  2G  Mo.  488 ;  State  v.  Rein- 
hardt,  31  Mo.  95.  A  surviving  partner 
should  not  be  appointed  administrator  of 
the  deceased  partner's  estate  :  Heward  l: 
Slagle,  52  111.  336  ;  Cornell  v.  Gallaher, 
16  Cal.  367.  Tiie  statutory  e.xclusion  of 
a  surviving  partner  extends,  in  California, 
to  one  who  iiad  formerly  been  a  partner 
of  the  deceased,  if  any  partnership  ac- 
counts remain  unsettled :  Garber's  Es- 
tate, 16  Pac.  R.  (Cal.)  23.3. 

2  Bieber's  Appeal,  11  Pa.  St.  157,  162  ; 
Heron's  Estate,  6  Phila.  87  ;  IMckering  v. 
Pendexter,  46  N.  H.  69  ;  Owings  v.  Bates, 
y  Gill,  463  ;  Moody  v.  Moody,  29  Ga.  519. 

3  Tlie  English  doctrine  of  executor- 
ship by  reason  of  being  tlie  executor's 
executor  assigns  the  unadministercd  ef- 
fects of  the  first  testator  to  the  same  cus- 
tody as  his  executor's  effects,  and  the 
liability  to  account  and  the  duty  to  en- 
force the  accounting  are  united  in  the 
same  person.     So,  in  some  of  the  States, 


tlie  right  of  the  Iiusband's  executor  to 
letters  de  bom's  non  on  the  pre-deceased 
wife's  estate,  on  whicli  the  husband  had 
been  administering,  is  still  recognized  as 
superior  to  the  rigiit  of  the  wife's  next  of 
kin:  Ilendren  v.  Colgin,  4  Munf.  231; 
Matter  of  Harvey,  3  Redf.  214,  217,  citing 
authorities ;  while  the  husband's  admin- 
istrator has  no  such  right  :  Matter  of 
O'Niel,  2  Redf.  544.  See  also  Perry  r. 
l^e  Wolf,  2  R.  I.  103,  as  to  an  executor's 
uniting  different  inconsistent  interests  in 
his  person. 

*  Wright  r.  Wright,  72  Ind.  149. 

5  A)ile,  §  2.33. 

^  And  this  is  so  whether  there  is,  or 
is  not,  any  other  next  of  kin  capable  to 
administer:  Rea  v.  Englesing,  56  Miss. 
463  ;  and  the  marriage  of  a  female  infant 
does  not  quality  her  to  receive  tlie  ap- 
pointment :  Briscoe  v.  Tarkington,  5  La. 
An.  692. 

'  It  is  held  that  married  women  may 
be  appointed  administratrices  in  Mary- 
land: Binnerman  v.  Weaver,  8  Md.  517  ; 
Pennsylvania  :  Gyger's  Estate,  65  Pa.  St. 
311  ;    Texas,   but  not   without  the   hus- 


526  LETTERS    OF    ADMINISTRATION.  §  241 

Non-residence,  rcsitlciits.^  Uiidei"  stututes  excluding  persons  con- 
(^riminais.  victcd  of  infamous  crime  from  the  I'igiit  to  be  ap- 
pointed, no  degree  of  legal  or  moral  guilt  is  sufficient  to  disqualify, 
short  of  conviction  after  indictment  or  other  criminal  proceeding  ^ 
Lack  of  im-  witliiii  the  State.''^  "  Want  of  understanding  "  must 
derstanding.  aiiiouut  to  a  lack  of  Intelligence,  and  cannot  be  pre- 
sumed from  a  lack  of  information  or  misinformation 

Improvidence.         „,,  a  -,  ,,  •  •  -t  11  ^      c 

of  the  law  ;*  and  "  improvidence,  as  a  ground  of  ex- 
clusion, is  such  a  want  of  care  and  forethought  as  would  be  likely 
to  render  the  estate  and  effects  liable  to  be  lost  or  diminished  in 
value  ;  ^  it  refers  to  such  habits  of  the  mind  and  body  as  render 
a  man  generally  and  under  all  ordinary  circumstances  unfit  to 

serve.''      An   applicant  for   letters  of   administration 

Intemperance.  *  *  c    1  •      •    j 

will  not  be  denied  them  by  reason  of  his  intemper- 
ance, unless  it  be  of  such  gross  character  as  would  warrant  over- 
seers of  the  poor  to  designate  him  as  an  habitual  drunkard,  or  a 
jury  to  adjudge  him  so.'' 

It  need  hardly  be  mentioned,  that  the  appointment  of  himelf  by 
a  judge  of  probate  would  be  void,  since  the  essential  element  of 
Interest  of  the  justicc  to  the  parties  interested  would  thereby  be  jeop- 
judge.  arded  ;  ^  and  it  has  been  held  that  a  judge  of  probate 

interested  in  an  estate  cannot  grant  administration  thereon.^     The 

hand's  consent :  Nickelson  v.  Ingram,  24  64    Iowa,  343 ;    and    in   Wisconsin    the 

Tex.   630.     In   Massachusetts    marriage  choice  of  a  non-resident  hy  one  preferred 

extinguishes  the  authority  of  a  joint,  hut  to  administer  should  he  disregarded  :  Sar- 

not  of  a  sole  administratrix  :    Barber  r.  gent's  Estate,  62  Wis.  130.     In  California 

Busii,  7  Mass.  510.     In  some  States,  the  non-residence  is  a  disqualification:  Estate 

husband    marrying   an   administratrix  is  of  Beech,  63  Cal.  458  ;  and  so  in  Pennsyl- 

investcd   witli    her   powers   during  their  vania :  Trick's  Appeal,  114  Pa.  St.  29. 
joint  lives  :  Pistole  r.  Street,  5  Port.  64.  2  Coope  v.  Lowerre,  1  Barb.  Ch.  45. 

It  was  so  in  Arkansas  before  the  revision  ^  a  conviction  in  another  State  will 

of  the  statutes:    Ferguson   v.  CoUins,  8  not  disqualify.  O'Brien's  Estate,  3  Dem, 

Ark  241.  150 ;  s.  c.  67  How.  Pr.  503. 

1  It   was    held    in    Maryland  :    Ehlen  *  Shilton's  Estate,  Tuck.  73. 

V.  Eiilen,  64  Md.  360 ;    South  Carolina  ;  ^  Coope  v.  Lowerre,  supra  ;  O'Brien's 

Jones  V.  .Tones,  12  Rich.  623 ;  New  York  :  Estate,  supra  ;  Matter  of  Cutting,  5  Dem. 

Matter  of   Williams,  44   Hun,  67;    and  456. 

Virginia:  Ex  parte  Barker,  2  Leigh,  719,  ^  Emerson  v.  Bowers,  14  N.  Y.  449. 

that   non-residence    does   not   disqualify.  ''  Elmer  ».  Kechele,  1  Redf.  472. 

In   Iowa,   while   non-residence   does   not  ^  Schoul.  Ex.  §  114. 

disqualify,  a  non-resident  ouglit  not  to  be  ^  Sigourney  v.  Sibley,  22  Pick.  507,  cit- 

appointed  unless  it  be  made   to  appear  mg  earlier  Massachusetts  cases  :  Thorn- 

that  tlie  interests  of  the  estate,  and  of  ton  v.  Moore,  61   Ala,  347,  354.     Under 

heirs  and  creditors,  will  he  as  well  pro-  the  Maine  statute,  a  probate  judge  is  not 

tected  as  by  the  appointment  of  a  res-  interested  in  an  estate,  so  as  to  disqualify 

ident:  Chicago,  B.  &  Q.  Railroad  y.  Gould,  him   from   acting,  because  his  aunt   by 


§  242        CONSIDERATIONS    GOVERNING    THE    IJISCRETION.  527 

appoiiitnient  of  a  son  of  the  judge  was  held  to  be  a 
manifest  violation  of  judicial  delicacy  and  propriety, 
but  not  void,  in  Alabama ;  ^  but  in  Massachusetts  the  aj)poiutment 
of  the  brother  of  the  judi>-e's  wife  was  held  void.^ 

§  242.  Considerations  governing  the  Discretion.  —  It  is  obvious 
that,  in  the  exercise  of  the  power  of  appointing  administrators,  the 
court  is  limited  to  the  selection  of  such  persons  as  Desii^'nation  bv 
arc  competent  under  the  statute,  in  the  order  therein  '.'.'^iipllisorv  on 
])ointed  out.  Thus,  if  the  widow  constitute  a  class  by  ti>e  court, 
herself,  as  she  does  in  many  States,  she  must  be  appointed  if 
willing  to  serve,  and  not  disqualified  under  the  statutory  regula- 
tions of  the  subject,'^  no  matter  what  objections  exist  to  her  ad- 
ministration, or  how  plausible  they  be.  There  is,  in  such  case,  no 
discretion.'* 

So  where  the  statute  makes  a  distinction  of  sex  between 
those  otherwise  equally  entitled,  the  individuals  composing  the 
favored  class  must  be  appointed,  if  they  apply,  no  matter  how 
desirable  the  appointment  of  one  of  the  other  sex  might  be  to  the 
majority  of  those  interested,^  unless  the  favored  class  are  under 
some  statutory  disability.^  And  where  an  unmarried  is  preferred 
to  a  married  female,  the  court  cannot  reject  the  application  of  the 
former,  although  it  is  objected  against  her  that  she  is  a  professed 
nun,  and  the  inmate  of  a  convent."    Where  the  widow  wi 

'  W  mow  in 

and  next  of  kin  are  placed  in  the  same  class  as  to  the  ^^^^  <=i^«^  ^''^ 

.  „  .  next  of  kin  is 

right  ot  appomtment,  the  widow,  as  has  already  been  preferred, 
stated,^  is  preferred,  other  things  being  equal  ;  a  sole  Sole  is  prefer- 
being  likewise  preferred  to  a   joint    administration.^  aciminisTratLn. 
And  if  there  be  no  next  of  kin  competent  to  be  appointed,  the 

marriage  is  a  legatee  :  Marston,  Petition-  *  Pendleton  ;•.  Pendleton,  G  Sm.  &  M. 

er,  79  Me.  25.  448  ;   Muirhead  i:  Muirliead,  6  Sni.  &  M. 

1  Plowman  v.  Henderson,  59  Ala.  559,  451,  holding  tliat,  wliere  a  son  liad  been 
504  ;  Koger  v.  Franklin,  79  Ala.  505.  So  appointed  witliin  sixty  days  after  tlie  in- 
of  a  son-in-law:  Hine  v.  Hussy,  45  Ala.  testate's  death,  his  letters  were  properly 
490,  512;  Hayes  v.  Collier,  47  Ala  726,  728.  revoked  on  the  application  of  tlie  widow"; 

2  Hall  V.  Thayer,  105  Mass.  219,  and  Matter  of  Williams,  5  Dem.  292,  affirmed 
cases  cited  on  cognate  principles.  44  Hun,  G7. 

3  Radford   v.    Radford,    5    Dana,  1-56,  6  Cook  v.  Carr,  19  Md.  1. 

holding  that  residence  in  another  State  c  Wickwire  r.  Chapman,  15  Barb.  302. 

disqualifies  the  widow.     So  in  Iowa,  an  ■  Smith  v.  Young,  5  Gill,  197,  203. 

administrator  already  appointed  will  not  ^  Ait/p,  §  2;]5 

be  removed  in   order  that  a  non-resident  ^  Wms.  Ex.  [417] ;  Schoul.  Ex.  §  99;  3 

widow    may    be    appointed  :     O'Brien's  Redf.  on  Wills,  83,  pi.  7. 

Estate,  63  Iowa,  622. 


528  LETTERS    OF    ADMINISTRATION.  §  242 

widow  has  the  sole  right.^  It  is  also  held,  that,  where  the  widow 
has  the  sole  right  to  be  appointed,  the  court  may,  at 
be'^asf)dut"d  her  desire,  associate  a  stranger  in  blood  with  her,  al- 
with  widow.  ^j^Qugi^  ^he  next  of  kin  object  thereto; 2  and  may  asso- 
ciate the  widow  with  an  administrator  already  appointed,  against 
his  protest.^ 

The  rule  which  is  the  foundation  of  the  preference  accorded  by 
the  statutes  —  i.  e.  to  commit  the  administration  to  those  who  are 
P  1  rr-  ••  o.  eventually  entitled  to  the  property  —  is  equally  bind- 
administration    \^cr  uDou  thc  court,  in  the  cxcrcisc  of  the  discretion 

to  tliose  ulti-  or  1    •     T    -1       1 

inateiy  inter-  vcstcd  iu  it,  lu  clioosiug  bctwcen  scveral  mdividuals 
estate  should  placed  by  the  statute  in  the  same  class  of  preference, 
guide  discie-  j^  follows  from  this,  that  the  court  will  rarely  or  never 
be  called  on  to  decide  on  questions  of  the  policy  of  following  the 
lineal  or  collateral  direction  of  kinship,  as  would  be  important  at 
the  civil  law,  or  computing  the  propinquity  between  the  lineal  and 
collateral  kindred,  as  would  be  necessary  at  the  common  law  ;  * 
but,  having  ascertained  to  whom  the  property  of  the  intestate 
devolves  under  the  statute  governing  this  subject,'^  its  discretion 
is  narrowed  to  the  individual  or  class  of  individuals  so  entitled.*^ 
If  this  class  include  the  widow  together  with  children  or  other 
next  of  kin,  the  widow  is,  as  we  have  seen  before,  generally  pre- 
ferred ;  but  the  preference  must  yield  where  she  is  unsuitable,  in 
which  case  one  or  more  of  the  next  of  kin  will  be  entitled.^  In 
selecting  from  among  the  next  of  kin,  the  preference  may  be 
determined  by  the  ratio  in  which  the  parties  are  entitled  to  dis- 
tribution; for  if  one  be  entitled  to  more  than  another,  he  will 
have  a  greater  interest  in  the  proper  administration  of  the  estate.^ 
And  in  cases  of  conflicting  claims  the  applicant  upon  whom  a 
majority  of  the  parties  in  interest  agree  will  generally  be  pre- 

1  McGooch  I'.  McGooch,  4  Mass.  348.        the   distribution    thereof  "  :   Leverett    v. 

2  Shropshire  i\  Withers,  5  J.  J.  Marsh.  Dismukes,  10  Ga.  98,  99  ;  Sweezy  i'. 
210.      See   also    Quintard   v.    Morgan,  4     WilUs,  1  Bradf .  495. 

Dem.  168, 174,  associating  a  stranger  with  '  See  ante,  as  to  the  widow's  disquali- 

one  preferred,  where  the  interest  of  the  fication,  §§  237,  241.     Disqualification  to 

estate  required  it.  take  the  administration  under  a  statute 

3  Kead  r.  Howe,  13  Iowa,  50.  giving    her  preference   would    seem,    a 
*  Sehoul.  Ex.  §  103.  fortiori,  to  disqnalif}'  her  under  a  statute 

5  As  to  which  see  ante,  cli.  viii.  placing  her  in  a  class  with  others. 

6  In  some  States  the  rule  is  enacted  by  ^  Horskins  v.  Morel,  T.  U.  P.  Charlt. 
statute,  that  "  the  same  rule  shall  obtain  69 ;  Moody  v.  Moody,  29   Ga.  519,  522 ; 
in  regard  to  the  granting  letters  of  admin-  Quintard  v.  Morgan,  4  Dem.  168. 
istration  on  intestate  estates,  as  regulates 


§  242         CONSIDEKATIONS    GOVERNING    THE    DISCRETION. 


529 


ferred,*  but  not,  of  coiii-se,  unless  the  nominee  belong-  to  the  same 
class;  for  the  order  of  preference  enacted  by  statute  cannot  be 
chanjred  or  ignored  to  the  postponement  of  any  person  included 
therein.2  Other  things  being  precisely  even,  the  scale  oiiIlt  preferred 
may  be  inclined  by  the  preference  of  an  older  over  a  nianTmaie 
younger  person ;  ^  or  of  a  male  over  a  female;^  of  an  unma^rrS'^' 
unmarried  over  a  married  woman ;^  and  of  one  accus-  "^er  married 

woman  ; 

tomed  to  business  over  one  inexperienced.^     Cceteris  experienced 
paribuH,  the  fact  that  an  applicant  had  twice  been  a  rienced^:^''^' 
bankrupt  militates  against  him,  to  the  preference  of  ''nlhwuT 
one  who  had  not  been  bankrupt ;'  and  so  does  the  fact  on"  who'har 
that  one,  in  addition  to  being  of  the  next  of  kin,  is   also  a  credi- 
tor.s     Nor  will  one  be  appointed  who  is  in  such    hos- 
tility to  the  others  as  will  disqualify    him  from  fairly 
considering   their   claims.^     The    antagonism   in    in- 
terest, which  in  some  States  amounts  to  a  statutory 
disqualification,!*^  is   an   important  circumstance    to   consider  in 
passing  upon  the  relative  claims  of  applicants  in  equal  degree 
under  the  statute,  although,  if    such  person  be  the  only  appli- 
cant, the  court  may  have  no  power  to  reject  him;ii  or,  havino- 
once  appointed  him,  though  in  ignorance  of  his  unsuitableness  in 


Hostility  to 
parties  in 
interest. 

Antagonism 
of  interest. 


1  Mandeville  v.  Mandeville,  35  Ga.  243, 
247  (holding  tliat  in  such  case  the  ordi- 
nary lias  no  discretion,  but  must  appoint 
tlie  nominee) ;  McBeth  (.'.  Hunt,  2  Strob. 
L.  33.3,  341.  Mr.  Williams  says  that 
tiiis  principle  was  recognized  as  early  as 
1G78,  in  tiie  case  of  Cartwright,  1  Freem. 
258,  see  Sawbridge  >:  Hill,^L.  R.  2  P  & 
1).  210;  also  Murdock  v.  Hunt,  68  Ga. 
1G4,  100. 

2  McClellan's  Appeal,  16  Pa.  St.  110, 
115. 

3  Wms.  Ex.  [427],  citing  Warwick  v. 
Greville,  1  Phillim.  122,  125;  Coppin  i'. 
Dillon,  4  Hagg.  301,376. 

■*  That  one  has  intermeddled  with 
the  effects  of  the  deceased  is  not  suf- 
ficient to  divest  him  of  this  preference ; 
Wms.  Ex.  [427],  citing  Chittenden  v. 
Knight,  2  Cas.  Temp.  Lee,  5-5'.).  But  the 
rule  that  the  grant  will  follow  the  in- 
terest preponderates  over  the  preference 
of  a  male  over  a  female  :  Iredaie  v.  Ford, 
1  Sw.  &  Tr.  305.  Resident  adult  females 
are  preferred  to  non-resident  minor  males 
VOL.  I.  — 34 


of  the  same  degree:  Wickwire  v.  Chap- 
man, 15  Barb.  .302. 

5  Adminstration  of  Curser,  89  N.  Y. 
401,  404. 

*>  Williams  r.  Wilkins,  2  Phillim.  100; 
see  Atkinson  r.  Hasty,  21  Neb.  60.3,  007. 

'  Bell  V.  Timiswood,  2  Phillim.  22. 

8  Wms.  E.x.  [427],  citing  Webb  v. 
Needham,  1  Add.  494 ;  Owings  i:  Bates, 
9  Gill,  463,  400. 

^  Under  a  statute  forbidding  tlie  ap- 
pointment of  an  "  incapable  "  person.  It 
was  held  that  neither  of  the  contending 
parties  should  be  intrusted  with  the  power 
of  administration,  because  their  animosity 
would  probably  lead  to  an  abuse  of  the 
trust :  Drew's  Appeal,  58  N.  H.  319. 
1'  See  ante,  §  241. 

"  Estate  of  Brown,  11  Phila.  127  ;  but 
the  appointment  of  a  surviving  partner 
as  administrator  of  the  deceased  partner's 
estate,  even  against  the  direct  inhil)ition 
of  the  statute,  cannot  be  impeached  col- 
laterally :  Estate  of  Altemus,  32  La.  An. 
364. 


630  LETTERS    OF    ADMINISTKATION.  §  243 

this  respect,  no  power  to  remove  him  except  for  cause  arising  after 
his  appointment. 

§  243.    Renunciation   of  the   Right  to   Administer.  —  The  prefer- 
ence given  by  statute  may  be  waived  or  renounced.     Unless  it  is, 

the  appointment  of  any  other  person  is  irregular,  and 
fcfmh'ifierniay  will  bc  vacatcd  upon  demand  of  a  person  having  the 
be  renounced,  preference.^  The  renunciation  may  be  spontaneous,^ 
or  upon  citation  by  some  person  interested  ;  ^  and  it  will  be  pre- 
sumed—  that  is,  the  exclusive  right  to  administer  will  be  deemed 

—  to  liave  been  waived,  if  letters  are  not  applied  for 
or  waived.  y^^  ^j^^  party  preferred  within  the  period  prescribed  for 
such  purpose  by  statute.*  But  until  letters  have  been  granted  to 
some  one  else,  such  person  may  still  apply  and  demand  letters, 
although  the  statutory  period  may  have  expired.^  Renunciation 
should  be  in  writing  and  entered  of  record :  a  mere  parol  renun- 
ciation does  not  amount  to  a  waiver  of  the  right.*^  And  where 
the  renunciation  is  coupled  with  a  condition,  which  condition  is 
not  performed,  the  parties  renouncing  are  not  thereby  bound,  but 
may  insist  on  their  prior  right.'  Citation  to  parties  having  a 
prior  right  to  administer  cannot  ordinarily  be  issued  before  the 
expiration  of  the  period  fixed  by  statute  within  which  they  must 
make  ai)plication.^  Under  an  established  rule  of  the  English 
ecclesiastical  courts,  no  letters  will  be  granted  to  any  person  in 
derogation  of  the  right  of  those  having  priority,  unless  such  par- 
ties are  cited,  or  consent,  even  where  the  party  who  has  the  right 
has  no  interest  in  the  property  to  be  administered  ;  ^  but  this  rule 

1  Mullanphy  !^  County  Court,  6  Mo.  v.  Sabin,  supra;  Barber  v.  Converse,  1 
563;  Muirhead  v.   Muirhead,  0  Sm.  &  .M.     Redf.  .330. 

451;  Munsey  y.  Webster,   24  N.   H    126  ;  ^  AH  tlie  next  of  kin  having  renounced 

Cobb  V.  Newcomb,  19  Pick.  336  ;  Curtis  in  favor  of  the  eldest  among  them,  if  lie 

V.  Williams,  33  Ala.  570;  Curtis  v.  Burt,  could  find  security,  the  appointment  of  his 

34  Ala.  729.  nominee,  on  his  failing  to  obtain  security, 

2  McClellan's  Appeal,  16  Pa.  St.  110;  was  held  void  :  Rinehart  v.  Rinehart,  27 
Williams's  Appeal,  7  Pa.  St.  259;  Cobb  r.  N.  J.  Eq.  475.  So  a  widow,  renouncing  in 
Newcomb,  supra.  favor  of  a  particular  person,  is  not  bound 

3  Arnold  v.  Sabin,  1  Cush.  525,  528.  by  the  renunciation  if  this  person   is  not 

4  Grantham  v.  Williams,  1  Ark.  270;  appointed:  McClellan's  Appeal,  16  Pa. 
Forrester    v.    Forrester,    37    Ala.     398 ;  St.  110,  116. 

Wheat  r.  Fuller,  82  Ala.  572;  Atkinson  ^  So  enacted  by  statute  in  Missouri: 

r.  Hastv,  21  Neb.  663,  666;  Garrison  i-.  Rev.  St.  §§  7-9. 

Cox,  95  N.  C.  353,  3-56.  9  Wms.  Ex.    [448],    citing   Goods    of 

5  Cotton  V.  Taylor,  4  B.  Mon.  -357;  Barker,  1  Curt.  692,  and  Goods  of  Currey, 
Jordan  c   Ball,  44  Miss.  194,  201.  5  Notes  of  Cas.  54,  and  adding  in  a  note  : 

6  Muirhead ';.  Muirliead,  su/m/ ,•  Arnold  "When  the  next  of  kin  is  of   unsound 


§  243        RENUNCIATION    OF    THE    RIG  FIT    TO    ADMINISTER.  531 

is  nut  invariably  npitlied  to  cases  wlierc  the  selectiun  is  in  the 
discretion  of  tlie  court. ^  In  America  the  rule  is  the  same. 
Before  any  one  can  be  appointed  administrator  who  is  not  in  the 
preferred  class,  notice  must  be  o:iven  to  those  having  Notice  must  be 
a  prior  right,  to  appear  and  claim  their  privilege,  or  plefeVedl'"'^'' 
show   cause    why    the    ai)nlicant  should   not   be    ap-  ^'-'^"^'^  '^''^/'s 

J  I  I  I       are  f^rantud 

pointed.2     To  dispense  with  the  citation,  those  having  to  another; 
the  preference  should  renounce  their  claim,  or  signify  their  con- 
sent to  the  grant  of  the  petitionei"'s  request  by  indorsement  upon 
the  petition,  or  some  other  writing  of  record .^     But 

^     .         .  °  .         ,  but  not  bv 

no  notice  is  necessary  to  tiie  other  parties  in  the  ai>piicaiits  in 
same  class  with  the  applicant ;  the  appointment  may 
be  made  ex  parte  to  any  of  those  Avho  are  equally  eiititled.^  Ac- 
cordingly, letters  granted  to  strangers,  or  to  persons  having  no 
preference  under  the  statute,  without  notice  to  those  being  pre- 
ferred, will,  upon  the  a[)plication  of  those  having  the  right,  be 
revoked,  in  order  that  the  grant  may  be  made  in  accordance 
with  the  statute  ;  ^  but  such  grant  is  no  ground  for  revocation  if 
the  party  applying  therefor  had  notice  of  the  original  grant,  either 
constructively  in  the  mode  prescribed  by  the  statute,^  or  actually 
in  any  method,''  or  failed  to  apply  within  the  time  required  by  the 
statute,^  or  actually  renounced  the  right ;  ^  nor  can  there  be  such 
revocation,  except  for  cause  otherwise,  where  the  court  has  made 


mind,  the  practice  is  that  his  next  of  kin  *  Peters    v.    Public   Administrator,    1 

must  also  he  cited,  in  order  that  tiiey  may  Bradf.  200. 

talte  administration  for  his  use  »nd  ben-  ^  Kollin    v.    Whipper,    17    S.    C.    32; 

efit  if  tliey  think  proper  "  :    VVindeatt  v.  Estate  of  Wooten,  oti  Cat.  o22.  .'J^U  ;  0\\- 

Sliarland.L.  R.  2  P.  &  D.  217.  incrs   r.   Bates,  9  Gill,  46:5,  4t)7  ,   Keliy  v. 

1  Wms.    Ex.    [448],   citing   Goods    of  Wt-st,  80  N.  Y.  189,  145:  Gans  >:  Daber- 

Rogerson,  2  Curt.  G56  ;  Goods  of  Souiii-  gott,  40  N.  J.  Eq.  181.     Such  letters  are, 

mead,   .3   Curt.  28;  Goods   of  Widger,  3  however,  not  void  ;  lience  there  is  no  error 

Curt.  55 ;  Goods  of  Mardinge,  2  Curt.  1)10.  in  refusing  to   grant  letters  to  one  who 

^  Sclioul.   Ex.    §  112;    Ramp   ?•.    Mc-  liad  a  prior  right,  until  tiie  administrator 

Daniel,  12  Oreg.  108,  113.     Tiie  citation  previously  appointed  be  removed  :  Jones 

maybe  by  personal  service,  or  by  post-  i:    Hittinger,    110    Ind.  470;  Garrison  v. 

ers,   or  newspaper   publication,   as    i)re-  Cox,  05  N.  C.  353,  355. 
scribed  by  statute  or  the  rule  of  court.  In  "  Per  Waldo,  C.  J.,  in  Ramp  v.  Mc- 

Soulh  Carolina  it  lias  been  published  by  Donald,  12  Oreg.  108,  116. 
being  read    in    church  by  an   officiating  "^  Davis  v.  Smith,  58  N.  H.  16. 

clergyman.  Sargent  i'.  Fox,  2  McCord,  ^  Grantham  r.  Williams,  1   Ark.  270; 

309;  Succession  of  Talbert,    16  La.  An.  Cotton  v.  Taylor,  4  B.  Mon.  357;  Jordan 

230:    Torrance    r.    McDougald,    12    Ga.  »-.    Ball,  44  Miss.   194,  201;  Forrester  r. 

526;  Matter  of  Batchelor,  64   How.  Pr.  Forrester,  37  Ala.  398;  but  see  Gans  i'. 

350.  Dabergott,  supra. 

3  Schoul.  Ex.  §  112.  9  Estate  of  Keane,  56  Cal.  407,  409. 


532 


LETTERS    OF    ADMINISTKATION. 


§244 


the  appointment  in  the  exercise  of  its  statutory  jurisdiction  in 
selecting  one  or  more  from  a  class  equally  entitled.^  In  Mary- 
land no  notice  is  required  to  a  party  preferred  if  he  be  out  of  the 
State ;  ^  and  in  New  York  the  public  administrator  need  only 
notify  such  relatives  of  the  decedent  as  are  entitled  to  a  share  of 
the  estate.^ 

§  244.  Effect  of  Renunciation  or  Waiver.  —  If  the  {)Crson,  or  all 
of  a  class  of  persons,  entitled  by  preference,  have  waived  or 
renounced  their  privilege,  it  becomes  the  duty  of  the  court  to 
Same  rules  appoint  the  onc,  or  one  or  more  of  a  class,  having  the 
next  right,  if  there  be  such  ;  *  the  discretion  to  select 
between  several  equally  entitled  being  governed  by 
the  same  considerations  as  if  no  renunciation  or  waiver  had 
occurred,^  limited,  however,  to  the  applicants  before  the  court, 
because  the  court  has  no  right  to  reject  an  applicant  on  the  mere 
ground  that  there  may  be  others  equally  entitled  who  are  better 
qualified.^ 

Where  the  husband,  widow,  or  next  of  kin  resides 
abroad,  it  is  usual,  in  England,  to  grant  administra- 
tion to  his  attorney ; '  and  this  rule  is  followed  in  the 
United  States,  where  the  statutes  do  not  prohibit  it.^ 
So  a  stranger  may  be  appointed  at  the  request  of  one 


applicable  to 
next  class  in 
preference. 


Nominee  of 
one  preferred 
find  renoun- 
cing may  be 
appointed,  if 
ttiere  be  no 
otlier  having 
preiereuce. 


1  Brubaker's  Appeal,  98  Pa.  St.  21, 
24,  citing  Sliomo's  Appeal,  57  Pa.  St. 
356  ;  Hawkins  v.  Robinson,  3  T.  B.  Men. 
143,  145. 

2  Eiilen  V.  El.len,  64  Md.  360,  362. 

3  And  failure  to  give  notice  can  only 
be  taken  advantage  of  by  tbose  entitled 
to  the  notice  :  Matter  of  Brewster,  5  Dem. 
259. 

4  Latbrop  v.  Smith,  24  N.  Y.  417,  420; 
Atkins  V.  McCormick,  4  Jones  L.  274. 

5  Ante,  §  242. 

6  Halley  r.  Haney,  3  T.  B.  Mon.  141, 
142;  Wright  v.  Wright,  Mart.  &  Y.  43. 
One  who  applies  first  must  be  appointed, 
unless  the  later  applicant  has  a  better 
right :  Succession  of  Petit,  9  La.  An.  207  ; 
Succession  of  Nicolas,  2  La.  An.  97. 
But  the  application  need  not  be  a  direct 
personal  one  ;  the  appointment  may  be, 
after  citation,  to  another,  without  a  new 
citation  :  Mandeville  v.  Mandeville,  35  Ga. 
243,  246. 

7  Wms.  Ex.  [438]. 


8  Smith  r.  Munroe,  1  Ired.  L.  345,  351, 
citing  liitcliie  v.  McAuslin,  1  Hayw.  220; 
Estate  of  Robie,  Myr.  226,  and  Estate  of 
Cotter,  Myr.  179,  affirmed  in  54  Cal.  215 
(both  these  California  cases  preferring 
the  non-resident  widow's  nominee  to  the 
public  administrator) ;  Little  v.  Berrj', 
y4  N.  C.  433,  437.  In  California  the  nom- 
inee of  a  non-resident  wife  is  preferred 
to  a  brother  of  the  decedent  :  In  re 
Stevenson,  72  Cal.  164  ;  but  the  nominee 
of  a  resident  brother,  whose  appointment 
was  contested  by  the  public  administra- 
tor, who  was  found  to  be  a  foreigner  bj' 
birth,  not  able  to  become  a  citizen  of  the 
United  States,  not  intending  to  reside 
permanently  in  the  State,  who  does  not 
speak  our  language,  having  nothing  in 
common  with  our  interests  except  to  be 
protected  and  acquire  property,  and  the 
brother  nominating  him  held  to  be  in  the 
same  class  of  preferment  with  the  public 
administrator,  was  held,  in  the  exercise 
of  discretion  vested  in  the  court,  not  en- 


§   244  EFFECT    OF    RENUNCIATION    OR    WAIVER.  533 

liaving  himself  the  preference,  if  there  be  no  others  having  prefer- 
ence over  the  stranger  so  appointed,  or  if  all  there  be  of  such 
acquiesce.^     But  the  ridit  given  bv  the  statute  can-  ^ 
not  be  delegated  ;  "^  the  widow,  or  any  of  those  entitled  ence  cannot  Ue 

,.".,,,  delegated. 

by  preference,   may   renounce  their  right,  but  wlicn 
they  do  so,  the  power  to  ajjpoint,  under  the  regulations  of  the 
statute,  and  the  duty  to  exercise  the  discretion  thereby  conferred, 
is  still  in  the  probate  court :  hence  the  person  renouncing  cannot 
substitute  another  person  and  demand   his  appoint-  The  wishes  of 
ment.^     But  while  the  court  is  in  no  wise  bound  by  fen-«fwfi/be 
the  nomination  of  the  party  having  renounced,  yet  the  thrcourt'to^^ 
wishes  and   preferences  of  those  whom   the   statute  gu'^iethc 

^  _    _  exercise  of  its 

points  out  as  the  fittest  persons  to   administer  the  discretion, 
estate  will   have  great  weight   in  guiding  the  discretion  of   the 
court.* 

Agreements  to  transfer  the  right  of  administration  from  those 
entitled  under  the  statute  to  other  parties,  for  a  consideration,  — 
for  instance,  of  receiving  from  sucli  party  the  commissions  to  be 
allowed  by  the  court, —  are  against  public  policy  and  will  not 
be  sustained  ;  °  an  agreement  between  two  parties,  both  equally 
entitled,  to  take  joint  administration,  and,  where  the  principal 
labor  and  responsibility  would  fall  on  one,  that  the  other  would 
take  such  portions  of  the  commissions  as  his    associate  would 

titled  as  against  the  public  administrator :  Estate,  81*  Pa.  St.  ^>62  ;  Triplett  v.  Wells, 

Estate  of  Yee  Yun,  Myr.  181.     One  not  Litt.  Cas.  49;  Matter  of  Cresse,  28  N.  J. 

entitled  to  administer,  by  reason  of  non-  Eq.  236;  In  re  lioot,  1  Kedf    257;  Sar- 

residence,  has  no  authority,  in  the  absence  gent's  Estate,  62  Wis.  130,  135. 
of  statutory  provision,  to  select  another  ■*  MoBetli   r.   Hunt,  supra  ;  Muirheafl 

to  represent  him  :    Long  r.  Huggins,  72  v.  Muirhead,  6  Sm    &  M.  451  ;  Ellmaker's 

Ga.  776,  790;  Sutton  v.  Public  Adniinis-  Estate,  4  Watts,  .34;  and  see  authorities 

trator,  4  Dem.  33  ;  but  in  Prick's  Appeal,  sujira,  p.   532,   note  6  ;    McClellan's    Ap- 

114    Pa.    St.    29,    35,    the    court    says:  peal,  16  Pa.  St.  110 ;  Halliday  r.  Du  Bose, 

"  Generally,  it  is  the  duty  of  the  register  59  Ga.  268;  Prick's  Appeal,  114  Pa.  St. 

to  regard  the  expressed  will  of  the  parties  29,  35. 

entitled  to  the  estate,  whether  they  re-  ^  Owings  i:  Owings,  1  Har.  &  G.  484 ; 
side  within  or  without  the  State,  and  if  Brown  ;•.  Stewart,  4  iMd.  Ch.  368  ;  Bowers 
they  are  incompetent  the  trust  should  be  v.  Bowers,  26  Pa.  St.  74  ;  EUicott  v.  Cham- 
committed  to  their  nominee,  if  a  fit  per-  berlain,  38  N.  J.  Eq.  604,  609.  But  an 
son."  agreement    whereby  one  joint    executor 

1  Patterson  v.  High,  8  Ired.  Eq.  52,  54.  renounced  his  right  to  letters  testamentary 

2  President,  &c.  i:  Browne,  34  Md  in  favor  of  his  co-executor,  in  considera- 
4-50,  4.55  ;  McBeth  r.  Hunt,  2  Strobh.  335,  tion  of  being  paid  one  half  commissions, 
341  ;  Ex  parte  Young,  8  Gill,  285.  was  held  a  valid  agreement :  Ohlendorf  i7. 

3  Cobb    r.   Newfomb,    19   Pick.    336;  Kanne,  66  Md.  495. 
Shomo's  Appeal,  57  Pa.  St.  'doG;  Guldiu's 


534  LETTEllS    OF    ADMIJSISTIIATIOX.  §  245 

think  fair,  is  valid ;  ^  but  there  can  be  no  partnership  in  the  oflice 
of  administrator.^ 

§  245.  Administrators  cum  Testamento  annexo.  —  The  distinc- 
tion between  an  administrator  generally  and  an  administrator 
T.T  ,  .^  cum  testamento  annexo  is,  as  the  name  implies,  and  as 

No  letters  cum  '  i-  ^ 

testamenio  an-   has  already  been  remarked,^  that  the  former  distributes 

ncxo  will  be 

granted  with-  the  effects  according  to  the  law  of  descent  and  distribu- 
there'irno  ex-  tion,  wliilc  tlic  latter  is  bound  in  this  respect  by  the 
or^wiiUug  to  "^  provisions  of  the  will.  Since  administration  with  the 
'^^^-  will  annexed  is  granted  only  in  default  of  an  executor 

named  in  the  will,  it  is  necessary,  before  such  grant  can  be  made, 
that  the  court  be  fully  satisfied  that  the  executor  named,  if  any, 
or,  where  several  are  named,  all  of  them,*  have  renounced  the 
trust,  or  are  unwilling  to  serve,  or  incapable.  No  formality  is 
necessary  in  making  such  proof,^  beyond  the  compliance  with  the 
statutory  requirements  on  this  subject ;  but  it  is  necessary  that 
the  record  show  the  renunciation,  or  waiver,  otherwise  letters 
cum  testamento  annexo  may  be  declared  void.^ 

In  granting  letters  cuju  testamento  annexo,  the  court  is  gov- 
erned by  the  same  principles  which  determine  the  appointment 
of  general  administrators,  chief  among  which  is,  tliat. 

Same  consider-  c  '_  _     ° 

ations  govern     in  the  abscucc  of  regulation,  the  right  to  administer 

tlie  appoint-  .  .     ■'  ,^ 

nientofanad-  follows  the  right  to  the  personal  property,  hieiice 
auTiestnmento  rcsiduary  legatees  are  preferred,  in  the  grant  of  let- 
geneTaVldmtn-  ^crs  cum  testamento  aymexo,  to  the  next  of  kin^  or 
istrator.  widow ;  ^  and  this  preference  extends  to  the  repre- 

1  Brown  v.  Stewart,  4  Md.  Ch.  368;  quiring  jurisdictional  facts  to  be  recited  in 
see  also  Bassett  v.  Miller,  8  Md.  548.  As  the  record  is  now  much  relaxed,  and  if 
to  agreements  concerning  commissions,  the  circumstances  exist  which  autliorize 
gee  post,  under  accounting.  the  appointment,  they  may  be  proved  by 

2  Seely  v.  Beck,  42  Mo.  143,  148.  parol :  see  Peebles  v.  Watts,  9  Dana,  102  ; 
8  Ante,  §  178.  Tliompsons  v.  Meek,  7  Leigli,  419,  citing 
*  For  one  of  several  executors  qualify-     Geddy  v.  Butler,  3  Munf.  345,  and  Nelson 

ing  has  all  the  power  vested  in  the  several  v.  Carrington,  4  Munf.   332,  as  showing 

executors  :    Phillips  v.    Stewart,   59   Mo.  that  renunciation  might  be  valid,  though 

491.      And   an   executor    has    power   to  not    shown    of   record  ;    also   authorities 

administer  all  the  property  of  the  testator,  under  §  234,  ante,  and  the  subject  of  col- 

though   a   part   of  it  has   not   been   be-  lateral  impeachability  of  the  judgments 

queathed  by  the  will :  Landers  v.  Stone,  of  probate  courts,  ante,  §  145. 
45  Ind.  404.     See   on  this   latter  point,  ^  Bradley    v.    Bradley,   3   Redf.   512, 

ante,  §  178.  citing  Ward  in  re,  1  Redf.  254 ;  Russell 

5  See  ante,  §  234.  v.  Hartt,  87  N.  Y.  19. 

6  Vick  V.  Vicksburg,  1  How.  (Miss.)  »  Ante,  §  235.  But  if  there  be  a  jmr- 
379,  439.    But  the  rigidity  of  the  rule  re-  tial  intestacy,  the  right  to  the  adminis- 


§  245  ADMINlSTKATOnS    CUM    TEBTAMKNTO    ANNEXO.  635 

sentatives  of  residuary  legatees  who  survive  the  testator  and 
have  a  beneficial  interest,  such  representatives  being  entitled  to 
letters  cum  testamento  annexo  in  pi-cference  to  the  next  of  kin/  un- 
less otherwise  determined  by  statute.^  TIius,  in  Massachusetts, 
neither  the  next  of  kin,  nor  any  other  person,  has  a  claim  to  ad- 
ministration de  honis  'nan  cum  testamento  annexu  upon  the  death 
of  a  sole  executor.3  In  New  York,  under  a  statute  providing  that, 
"  if  any  person,  who  would  otherwise  be  entitled  to  letters  of  ad- 
ministration with  the  will  annexed  as  residuary  or  specific  legatee, 
shall  be  a  minor,  such  letters  shall  be  granted  to  his  guardian, 
being  in  all  other  respects  competent,  in  preference  to  creditors  or 
other  persons,^'  it  was  held  that,  as  against  the  guardian  of  an  in- 
fant legatee,  but  neither  residuary  nor  specific,  the  widow  or  other 
relative  has  preference^  So  where  the  legatee  named  is  incom- 
petent to  administer,  tlie  next  person  named  is  entitled  ;^  and  the 
cestui  que  trust,  not  the  trustee,  is  the  real  party  in  interest,  and 
therefore  entitled  to  letters  cum  testamento  annexo.^  In  Penn- 
sylvania the  husband  of  an  heiress  is  not  entitled  to  letters  cum 
testamento  ;  ^  and  a  power  of  attorney  from  a  surviving  executor, 
which  is  ten  years  old,  was  held  to  be  too  stale  to  authorize  a 
grant  of  letters  with  the  will  annexed.^  In  North  Carolina,  the 
court  of  ordinary  formerly  had  discretionary  powxr  to  appoint  ani) 
proper  person  administrator  with  the  will  annexed  where  there  is 
no  executor  competent  or  willing  to  serve ;  ^  now  in  this  State,^" 
as  well  as  in  South  Carolina,  the  ordinary  is  bound  to  observe  the 
same  order  of  preference  in  such  case  as  in  the  case  of  intestacy  ;^^ 
and  if  he  improperly  grant  letters  to  a  stranger,  he  will  revoke 
the  appointment  at  the  request  of  one  preferred.^^    In  Maryland  it 

tration  remains  in  tlie  next  of  kin,  since  vvliere  tlie  statute  applies,  the  surrogate 

tliey   are   entitled    to   the   unbequeatlied  has  no  discretion  :  Blanck  v.  Morrison,  4 

property  :    Ellniaker's    Estate,   4  Watts,  Dem.  297. 
34,  38  5  Tliompson's  Estate,  33  Barb.  o:;4 

1  Wins.    Ex.    [464],   and    authorities  ;  *>  Ibid. 

Hendren  v.  Colgin,  4  Muiif.  231,  [)ref'erring  ^  Eilmaker's  Estate,  4  Watts,  34. 

tlie  husband's  executor  or  administrator  8  Bleakley's  Estate,  5  Wiiart.  361. 

to  the  next  of  kin  of  the  wife  ;  Cutchin  y.  ^  Suttle   v.   Turner,  8  Jones   L.  403; 

Wilkinson,  1  Call,  1,  6 ;  Clay  v.  Jackson,  but  this  case  seems  overruled  in  Little  v. 

T.  U.  I\  Charlt.  71.  Berry,  94  N.  C.  433. 

2  Williams's    Appeal,  7  Pa.    St.    259 ;  i''  Little  i'.  Berry,  supra. 
Spinning's  Will,  Tuck.  78.  "  Smith  v.  Wingo,  1  Rice,  287. 

'^  Russell  V.  Hoar,  3  Met.  (Mass.)  187,         i-  Smith  v.   Wingo,  supra,  relying  np- 
190.  on  Thompson  v.  Hucket,  2  Hill,  (S.  C.) 

■1  Cluett  V.  Mattice,  43  Barb.  417.     But     347. 


536  LETTERS   OF   ADMINISTRATION.  §  246 

seems  that  the  widow  is  first  entitled  to  letters  cum  testamento, 
next  the  residuary  legatee,  and  then  the  next  of  kin;  should 
these  decline  or  refuse  to  act,  and  the  creditors  or  more  remote 
kindred  do  not  apply,  the  court  may  use  its  discretion.^  In  Eng- 
land one  named  as  executor  cannot  take  letters  cum  testamento^ 
because  courts  will  not  make  a  grant  in  an  inferior  character  to 
one  entitled  to  it  in  a  superior  character  ;2  but  in  Missouri  it  was 
intimated  that  one  named  as  executor  in  the  will,  but  disqualified 
by  reason  of  being  one  of  the  subscribing  witnesses,  may  in  a 
proper  case  be  appointed  as  administrator  with  the  will  annexed.^ 
So  in  New  York  an  administrator  with  the  will  annexed  may  be 
appointed  to  succeed  to  the  duties  and  trust  of  a  deceased  execu- 
tor, including  a  trust  not  separable  from  the  functions  of  an  ex- 
ecutor ;  '^  and  one  who  unites  the  character  of  testamentary  trustee 
with  that  of  executor  may  be  removed  as  trustee,  and  continue  to 
act  as  executor.^  Where  the  testatrix  named  no  executor,  it  was 
held  that  oral  expressions  of  a  preference  by  the  testatrix  were 
entitled  to  weight  in  making  the  selection,  other  things  being 
equal.^ 

§  246.  Administrators  of  Estates  of  Non-Residents. — It  appears 
from  the  chapter  on  Domiciliar  and  Ancillary  Jurisdiction,'  that, 
in  consequence  of  the  extra-territorial  invalidity  of  letters  testa- 
mentary and  of  administration,  the  authority  to  sue  or  defend  as 
executor  or  administrator  must  be  conferred  by  the  law  of  the 
forum  in  which  they  appear.^  It  has  also  been  mentioned  under 
what  circumstances  wills  of  non-residents  obtain  valid- 

Appointment  .     . 

of  an  admiiiis-  jty  in  the  Several  States,^  and  that  it  is  not  necessary 
eS of  anon-  that  the  will  of  a  non-resident  testator  should  be  first 
denufinde-"  provcd  in  the  State  of  his  domicil,io  q^  that  adminis- 
?rantTf  domf-  tratiou  should  first  bc  granted  there  before  the  ap- 
ciiiar  letters,  pointnieut  of  an  administrator  in  the  State  where 
administration  may  be  desired.  The  powers  of  one  so  appointed 
are  in  no  manner  impaired  or  affected  by  the  previous  grant  of 
administration  in  the  State  of  the  domicil.ii     Since  the  law  of  the 

1  Dalrvmple  v.  Gamble,  66  Md.  298,  "  Matter  of  Powell,  5  Dem.  281. 
308.           '  ^  A"'e.  §§  157-169. 

2  Wms.  Ex.  [469],  and  English  author-  »  Taylor  r.  Barron,  35  N.  H.  484,  and 
itjes.  numerous  authorities   cited   on   p.   495; 

3  Murphy  v.  Murphy,  24  Mo.  526.  Naylor  r.  Moffatt,  29  Mo.  126. 

4  Matter  of  Clark,  5  Hedf.  466.  ^  Ante,  §  226. 

5  Quackenboss  r.  Southwiek,  41  N.  Y.  "  See  also  ante,  §  205. 

117  ;  Hallock  v.  Kumsey,  22  Hun,  89.  "  Henderson    f.    Clarke,  4  Litt.  277  ; 


§  247  ADMINISTRATORS   DE   BONIS   NON.  637 

domicil  at  the  time  of  an  intestate's  death  governs  the  dcvohition 
of  personal  property,  the  selection  of  an  administrator  will  be 
affected,  to  some  extent,  by  sucli  law  ;  but  in  other  respects  there 
is  no  essential  difference  in  the  rules  governing  the  grant  of 
letters  on  the  estates  of  deceased  residents  and  non-residents. 
It  has  also  been  pointed  out,  that  by  the  comity  of  States  the 
person  who  obtains  administration  in  the  State  of  the  domicil,  or 
his  attorney,  is  entitled  to  a  similar  grant  in  any  other  jurisdic- 
tion  where  the  deceased  has  personal  property,^  unless  such  person 
is  disqualified  by  the  law  of  the  ancillary  forum. 

§  247.  Administrators  de  Bonis  Non.  —  If  a  sole  or  all  of  several 
executors  or  administrators  die,  or  resign,  or  be  removed  from 
office  before  the  estate  is  fully  administered,  it  becomes  necessary 
to  a{)point  an  administrator  de  bonis  non  —  simply,  or  with  the 
will  annexed,  as  the  case  may  be  —  to  complete  the  administration. 
The  circumstances  under  which  such  letters  are  granted,  as  well  as 
the  powers  and  duties  of  the  ofhcers  so  appointed,  have  been  fully 
considered  in  connection  with  the  sul)ject  of  administrators  gen- 
erally ;2  it  is  sufficient,  therefore,  to  recapitulate,  in  Xo  admii.istra- 
this  connection,  that  there  must  be  an  estate  remain-  J",')^''''-,f/,""^' 
ino;  unadministered,-'^  and  a  vacancy  in  the  ofTice  of  there  buunad- 

^  .  ninustereu 

executor  or  administrator,"*  otherwise  there  can  be  no  assets  and  a 

,      ,        ,  r,i,  .  T         , .  vaeaiicv  in  the 

grant  of    letters  de  bonis  non.      1  he  considerations  office  of  udmin- 
governing  the   preference  in  ordinary   cases    govern  '^'^'■'^''""• 
also  in  respect  of  administrators  de  bonis  non,  whether  of  testate 
or  intestate  estates,^  except  as  otherwise  indicated  by  statutory 
rules.     In  New  York,  for  instance,  the  statute  is  held  to  provide 

Cosby  V.  Gilchrist,  7  Dana,  206;  Pond  v.  eery,  for  tlie  allowance  of  a  fraudulent 

Makepeace,   2    Met.    (Mass.)    114.     And  item    of   credit,  tiie  administration  must 

see  cnfe,  §  158;  Burnley  v.  Duke,  1  Rand,  be  completed  by  the  appointment  of  an 

108,  112.  administrator  de  bonis  non  in  the  probate 

1  Jnte,  §  158.  court  :    Byerly  v.    Donlin,    72    Mo.   270. 

2  Ante,  §  179.  To  same  effect,  Neal  v.  Charlton,  52  Md. 

3  It  is  not  sufficient  that  tbere  was  no  495,  citing  numerous  Maryland  cases, 
re^idar  final  seUlement  and  discharge  of  *  Tlie  grant  of  letters  de  horn's  no,,  upon 
the  executor  or  administrator.  Where  tlie  the  deatli  of  an  executor,  pending  an 
property  of  an  estate  was  turned  over  to  appeal  from  the  probate  of  the  will,  is 
a  legatee,  the  executor  removed,  and  six-  erroneous,  but  not  assailable  in  a  coUat- 
teen  years  elapsed,  an  application  for  eral  proceeiling ;  but  such  appniniment 
administration  de  bonis  non  by  one  show-  before  the  death  of  the  executor  would 
ing  no  interest  in  the  estate,  and  resisted  be  void  :  Finn  v.  Hempstead,  24  Ark. 
l)y    the    le'jatee,    will    be    refused  :    San  111,  116. 

Roman  V.  Watson,  54  Tex.  254,  259.     But  '^  Schoul.  Ex.  §  129,  citing  Wnis.  Ex., 

if  a  final  settlement  be  set  aside  in  chan-     and  2  Hagg.  Appendix,  169,  170. 


538  LETTERS    OF    ADMINISTRATION.  §  248 

that,  upon  the  deatli  of  a  sole  executor  after  having  qualified,  the 
widow  or  next  of  kin  is  entitled  to  letters  de  bo7iU  non  ;  but  if  he 
died  before  qualifying,  then  the  residuary  legatee  is  entitled  as 
against  the  widow  and  next  of  kin.^  In  Maryland,  the  female 
cousin  gernian  on  the  father's  side  is  preferred  to  the  male  cousin 
german  on  the  mother's  side,  for  general  letters  as  well  as  for 
letters  de  bonis  non?  In  Massachusetts,  upon  the  death  of  a  sole 
executor  or  administrator,  neither  widow  nor  next  of  kin  has  a 
right  to  the  administration  de  botiis  7ion,  but  the  judge  of  probate 
appoints  in  his  discreiion;^  but  the  reverse  is  held  in  Maryland, 
where  the  Orphan's  Court  is  governed  by  the  same  rules  of  pref- 
erence which  govern  in  the  original  grant  of  administration.*  In 
Mississippi,  upon  the  resignation  of  an  executor  or  administrator, 
the  court  may  appoint  his  successor  at  once,  without  citation  to 
the  parties  in  interest.^  In  California,  it  is  held  that  one  who  was 
rejected  as  not  being  entitled  to  administration  originally  may 
nevertheless  be  granted  administration  de  bonis  non,  after  the 
removal  of  the  original  administrator.^ 

§  248.  Administrators  with  Limited  Powers.  —  It  will  appear 
from  a  previous  passage,*^  that  limited  administrations  may  be 
granted  under  certain  circumstances,  although  discouraged  by 
courts  and  text-writers  in  America,^  because  here  the  tendency 
is  to  commit  administration  at  once  to  those  who  may  be  under 
no  present  disability,  with  full  authority  to  complete  the  settle- 
ment of  the  estate  without  disturbing  the  course  of  administration 
by  placing  it  in  the  hands  of  persons  claiming  a  superior  right. 
But  the  authority  to  appoint  administrators  ad  colligendum,  ad 
litem,  durante  absentia,  durante  minore  estate,  or  for  some  special 
The  rule  in        purpose,  IS  sometimcs  resorted  to.^    The  rules  govern- 

ordinary  cases,    .  , ,  ,    •  i       ,  •  c  •    , 

that  the  ap-  mg  the  court  m  selectmg  proper  persons  for  appoint- 
shou?dsoto  meiit  in  such  cases  are  necessarily  different  from 
the  ultimate       thosc  Controlling  the  appointment  of  general  adminis- 

benenciarv,  is  o  i  i  o 

not  applicable    trators,  becausc  the  fundamental  principle  of  having 

to  special  ad-  i      .     .  •  en  •    i  p 

ministratois.      the  administration   follow  the   right  of    property  is 

1  Bradley  v.  Bradley,  3  Redf.  512.  <  Thomas  v.  Knighton,  23  Md.  318, 
But  if  no  one  having  superior  right  apply,     325. 

the   next   of  kin  may   in   such   ease  be  ^  Sivley  v.  Summers,  57  Miss.  712,  731. 

appointed  :  Cobb  v.  Beardsley,  37  Barb.  «  Estate  of  Pico,  56  Cal.  413,  420. 

192.  ■'  Ante,  §  184. 

2  Kearney  v.  Turner,  28  Md.  408,  423.  »  3  Redf.  on  Wills,  11.3,  pi.  5. 

3  Russell  V.  Hoar,  3  Met.  (Mass.)  187.  ^  Ante,  §§  182-184. 


§  248  ADMINLSTKATOKS    WITH    LIMITED    POWERS.  539 

iiiapplicahle.  Tlu-  discretion  of  the  court  seems  to  be  limited 
only  by  tlie  bounds  of  propriety,  and  extends  to  any  discreet, 
qualified  person.  It  is  held  in  New  York,  that  the  surrop-ate  may 
limit  the  authority  of  an  administrator  appointed  to  do  certain 
acts,  and  no  others,  although  the  statute  did  not  expressly  author- 
ize such  limitation.!  It  is  evident,  however,  that  a  general  admin- 
istrator regularly  appointed  succeeds  to  all  the  rights  and  powers 
of  a  special  administrator,  as  much  so  as  an  administrator  de 
bonis  non  succeeds  to  the  unadministered  effects  of  the  intestate.^ 
In  Missouri,  where  the  statute  authorizes  the  probate  court  to 
appoint  an  administrator  to  take  charge  of  the  estate  during  a 
contest  of  the  will,-'^  it  is  held  that  this  authority  implies  the  power 
to  suspend,  during  such  contest,  the  authority  of  an  administrator 
cum  testamento  anwxo,  as  well  as  that  of  an  executor ;  that  au- 
thority to  grant  letters  ''to  some  other  person"  means  the  ap- 
pointment of  a  person  other  than  the  one  charged  with  the 
execution  of  the  will,  whether  named  in  the  will  or  not ;  and  that 
the  statute  preferring  the  widow  in  the  grant  of  administration 
generally  has  no  application  in  such  case.* 

1  Martin  v.  Dry  Dock,  92  N.  Y.  70,  74.  8  Rogers  v.  Dively,  51  Mo.  193. 

2  Cowles  V.  Hayes,  71  N.  C.  230,  citing  *  Lamb  v.  Helm,  56  Mo.  420. 
Eure  r.  Erne,  3  Dev.  200,  aud   Cutlar  v. 

Quince,  2  Hayw.  60. 


540  THE   ADMINISTRATION    BOND.  §  249 


CHAPTER   XXVII. 

OP   THE   ADMINISTRATION   BOND. 

§  249.  Origin  of  the  Law  requiring  Administration  Bonds,  —  The 
English  statute,^  requiring  bond  to  be  given  to  the  ordinary  upon 
English  statute  Committing  administration  of  the  goods  of  any  person 
Car."ii.,  sub-  dying  Intestate,  is  incorporated  into  the  statutes  of 
ado"\'edTa  cvcry  "State  In  the  Union.  So  great  has  at  all  times 
all  States.  been  the  anxiety  of  legislators  and  judicial  tribunals 
in  this  country  to  protect  the  just  demands  of  creditors,  on  the 
one  hand,  and  to  vindicate  the  lawful  inheritance  and  dower  to 
the  widow  and  next  of  kin,  on  the  other,  and  so  appropriate  and 
efficient  in  accomplishing  this  desired  end  is  the  administration 
bond  considered  to  be,  that  not  a  single  State  has  ever  ventured 
upon  the  experiment  of  substantially  changing  the  law  in  this 
respect.  The  form  of  such  a  bond,  enacted  "  anno  vicesimo  se- 
cundo  et  tertio  Caroli  II.,"  corresponds  substantially  to  the  form 
required  by  our  modern  statutes,  even  to  the  "  two  or  more  able 
sureties  "  demanded.  The  only  noticeable  change  made  in  Eng- 
land, as  embodied  in  the  Probate  Court  Act,^  is  the  provision  fixing 
the  minimum  of  the  penalty,  in  recognition  of  the  American  pre- 
cedent on  the  subject,  at  double  the  value  of  the  estate.  The  law 
„     ,      .,,      in  the  several  States  is  uniform  on  this  point,  requir- 

I'enalty  of  the  _  . 

bond  double       ing  the  administrator,  whether  with  the  will  annexed, 

the  amount  of  i      i  •  i  i 

the  property      de  ooms  non,  temporary,  or  permanent,  to  give  bond 

administered:  •,^     ,  m    •       l  j_-         •  j.ij_ 

except  in  With  two  or  morc  sumeient  sureties,  in  a  sum  at  least 

Louisiana.  double  the  value  of  such  personal  property  as  may 
come  into  his  possession  belonging  to  the  estate  of  the  decedent; 
with  the  exception  of  Louisiana,  where  the  minimum  is  fixed  at 
"  one  fourth  beyond  the  estimated  value  of  the  movables  and 
immovables,  and  of  the  credits  comprised  in  the  inventory  exclu- 

1  21   Henry  VIII.  c    5,  §  3;  22  &  23  2  20  &  21  Vict.  c.  77. 

Car.  II.  c   10,"  §  1. 


§  250  BONDS   OF   EXECUTORS.  541 

sive  of  bad  debts,"  ^  and  Mississippi,  where  it  must  equal  the  value 
of  the  personal  estate  at  least.^  In  Pennsylvania,  an  administra- 
tion where  no  bond  is  a-iven  is  by  statute    declared  ,    , 

"  •'  _  I'rfinate  jiidife 

void,^  and   there,  as  well  as  in  South  Carolina,  the  liable  for  ..mit- 
register  or  ordinary  neglecting  to  take  the  "adminis-  administration 
tration  bond  is  liable  for  all  damages;  and  although 
the  damages  do  not  appear  to  result  from  the  neglect,  yet  the 
law  will  presume  so.'* 

§  250.   Bonds  of  Executors.  —  But  under  the  English  law  exec- 
utors  derive  their  authority  from   the  will,   and   not  No  bond  ro- 
from  the    grant  of    the  ordinary,  or  probate  court;  mitors^in'^"'^ 
hence  in  England  executors  are  not  required  to  give    '"o'^"^- 

1  o  same  in  several 

bond.^  The  same  rule,  perhaps  for  the  same  reason,  States. 
prevails  in  Florida,'^  Georgia,"  Louisiana,^  New  York,^  North  Caro- 
lina,^*^  Pennsylvania,^^  and  South  Carolina,^^  in  which  States  ex- 
ecutors are  permitted  to  administer  on  the  estates  of  their  testators 
without  giving  an  administration  bond.  In  other  States,  no  dis- 
tinction is  made  in  the  matter  of  requiring  bonds  between  admin- 
istrators and  executors,  unless  the  testator  expressly  direct,  by 
provision  in  the  will,  that  the  executors  by  him  appointed  shall 
not  be  required  to  give  bond,  in  which  case  the  desire  of  the  testa- 
tor is  complied  with,  unless  the  court,  upon  complaint  of  some 
creditor,  legatee,  or  other  person  interested,  or  even  upon  its  own 
knowledge,  suspect  that  the  estate  would  be  fraudulently  adminis- 
tered or  wasted,  when  it  is  made  the  duty  of  the  court  to  cite  the 
executor  to  show  cause  why  bond  should  not  be  given,  and  in  its 
discretion  compel  it,  or  refuse  letters.  Such  is  the  states  in  which 
law  in  Alabama,^'^ California,^* Colorado,^-^ Connecticut,^^  dtrect'thaTex- 
Illinois,i7  Kansas,i8  Kentucky,i9  Mainc^^*^  Mississippi,2i  b^.^eli'T' 
Missouri  (since  November  1, 1879), 2"  Nevada,^-^  Ohio,-*  give  bond. 

1  Civ.  Code,  art.  1048.  12  Kev.  St.  1873,  p.  448  pt  xpq. 

2  Code,  Miss.  1880,  §  1995.  ^3  Code,  1886.  §§  2024,  2025 

8  Act  of  March  15,  1832,  §  27.  "  Code  Civ.  Pr.  §§  I0S8,  1396. 

*  Boggs  r.  Hamilton,  2  Mill,  (S.C.)  381.  i^  Gen.  L.  1883,  §  3519. 

5  Loma.x,  Ex.   &  Adm.  171   s.  p. ;    4  i«  Gen.   St.    1888,   §  548 ;    double    the 

Burn's  Ercl.  L.  176.  amount  of  debts. 

«  Dig.  1881,  p.  79,  §  11,  p.  80,  §  12.  i'   Rev.  St.  1885,  p.  195,  §  7. 

7  Code,  1882,  §  2447.  i^  Dassler's  St.  1885,  ch.  37,  §§  3,  4. 

8  Civ.  Code,  art.  1677.  i9  Gen.  St.  1887,  p.  587,  §  4. 

9  Code   Civ.   Tr.   §  26.38  ;   Demarest's  20  Rgv.  St.  188.3,  ch.  64,  §  9. 
Estate,  1  Civ.  Pr.  Rep.  302.  21  Rev.  Code,  1880,  §  1982. 

15  Rev.  Code,  1883,  §  1515.  2-2  Rgv.  St.  1879,  §  12. 

11  Brightly's   Purd.  Dig.  1883,  p.  510,         -'^  Comp.  L.  1873,  §§  553,  .559. 
§  21,  p.  511,  §  23.  24  Kev.  St.  I80O,  §§  5996,  5997. 


542 


THE   ADMINISTRATION   BOND. 


§250 


Oregon,^    Rhode    Island,^    Tennessee,^    Texas,*   Vermont,^    Vir- 
^    ^  dnia,^  West  Viryinia,^  and  Wisconsin.^     It    is    obvi- 

Such  exemp-       <=>  ?  o  ? 

tion  applies  ous  that  the  exemption  in  these  States  is  based  upon 
tors  noiniiiatcd  the  testator's  right  to  dispose  of  his  property  in  the 
y  le  testator.  j^-,r^j^j-^gp  deemed  best  by  him,  saving  the  rights  of  cred- 
itors and  of  those  having  legal  claims  upon  him ;  which  includes 
the  power  to  exempt  from  the  necessity  of  giving  bond,  as  a 
method  of  gift  to  the  executor.  From  this  it  follows,  that  the 
exemption  in  such  cases  is  personal  to  the  executor  named  in  the 
will,  becoming  inoperative  on  the  failure  or  refusal  of  such  person 
to  accept  the  trust,  and  has  no  application  to  otlier  executors  or 
States  in  which  administrators.^  But  in  other  States  the  requirement 
r^quileTto'^  to  give  boud  bcforc  an  executor  can  lawfully  take 
give  bond.  charge  of  an  estate,  is  as  imperative  and  absolute  as 
it  is  upon  administrators;  so  in  Arkansas,!^  Delaware,^^  lowa,^^ 
Indiana,^'*^  and  Maryland.^*  In  several  of  the  States  where  resident 
executors  are  not  required  to  give  bond,  a  discrimination  is  made 
against  non-resident  executors,  requiring  them  to  give  bond  and 
account,  in  default  of  which  administrators  with  the  will  annexed 
are  appointed,  either  originally,  or,  after  removal  of  the  executor, 
de  bonis  non}^ 


1  Code,  1887,  §  1088. 

2  Pub.  St.  188:^,  cli.  184,  §  14. 

3  Code,  1884,  §§  3063,  3066. 

4  Rev.  St.  1^88,  art.  1880,  1803. 

5  Felton  V.  Sowles,  57  Vt.  882. 

6  Code,  1887,  §2642. 

7  Kelley's  IJev.  St.  1878,  cli.  146,  §  7. 

8  Rev.  St.  1878,  §i?  3704,  3795. 

9  Langley  r.  Harris,  28  Te.x.  564,  570. 
See  also  Fairfax  v.  Fairfax,  7  Gratt.  36,  in 
wliicli  it  is  held  that  the  exyiression  of 
confidence  in  connection  with  the  appoint- 
ment of  executors  in  the  body  of  the 
will,  exemptins:  them  from  the  require- 
ment to  give  bond,  and  the  appointment 
of  a  furtlier  executor  in  a  codicil,  did 
not  constitute  an  exemption  to  the  last 
named  executor.  The  same  principle  is 
involved  in  Ex  parte  Brown,  2  Bradf.  22; 
Commonwealth  v.  Forney,  3  AV.  &  S.  353, 
357. 

i-J  Code,  1884,  §§  18,  20.  But  in  this 
State  it  was  nevertheless  held,  that,  al- 
though the  clerk  could  not  issue  letters 
without  taking  bond,  yet  there  might  be 
cases   where   the   court   might   dispense 


witli  it :  in  the  case,  for  instance,  of  a  sole 
heir  or  legatee  being  apjjointed  executor 
when  tliere  are  no  debts,  because  waste 
or  mismnnngcment  of  the  estate  would 
be  guarded  against  by  motives  of  self- 
interest,  and  in  any  event  could  injure 
no  one  but  himself:  Bankhead  r.  Hub- 
bard, 14  Ark.  298,  300.  It  will  be  ob- 
served that  this  reasoning  applies  as  fully 
to  intestate  estates,  where  there  is  but  one 
heir,  as  to  residuary  legatees. 

"  Kev.  Code,  Amended,  1874. 

1-^  Code,  §§  2362,  2347. 

13  St.,  Rev.  of  1881,  §2242. 

»  Laws,  1878,  p.  439,  §  40. 

15  So  in  Louisiana  :  Rev.  St.  1876, 
§  1461  ;  Succession  of  Davis,  12  La.  An. 
399;  Succession  of  McDonogh,  7  La. 
An.  472 ;  Yerkes  v.  Broom,  10  La.  An. 
94  ;  Succession  of  Bodenlieimer,  35  La. 
An.  1034.  In  New  Jersey,  Rev.  of  1877, 
757,  §  25,  the  testator  may  exempt  a 
resident,  but  cannot  a  foreign  executor. 
Ill  New  York :  Code  Civ.  W.  §  2638.  In 
North  Carolina:  Rev.  Code,  1883,  §  1515. 
In    Pennsylvania  :    Brightly's    Purdon's 


§  252        CIRCUMSTANCES    RENDERING    BOND   NECESSARY.  543 

§  251.    Power  of  Court  to  order  Bond.  —  Tri  tlioso  of  tho    States 
in  wlii(;h  an  executor  is  permitted  to  administer  without  giving 
bond,  whether  the  exemption  arise  under  the  statute  court  may 
or  by  express  direction  of  the  testator,  his  office  is  i',e  j^Tve'n" 
one  of  special  trust  and  confidence,  for  which  reason  "'']'|l''7','ii',Jct 
no  bond  is  required  of  him.     But  if  a  court  become  otherwise, 
satisfied  that  the  executor,  who  was  solvent  when  named  in  the 
will,  is  likely  to  become  insolvent,  and  that  there  is  danger  that 
he   may  abuse  his  trust,  or  lias  ground  to  susi)ect  that  he  will 
indirectly  and  frauihilontly  administer  the  estate  to  the  prejudice 
of  creditors  or  legatees,  he  will  be  ordered  to  give  bond  with 
sufficient  surety  to  i)rot(^ct  the  estate.^     In  such  case  any  person 
who  has  an  interest  in  the  estate  may  interpose  to  move  for  an 
order  requiring  security,^  and  when  the  interest  is  averred  jiosi- 
tively  and  under  oath  it  cannot  be  questioned  on  the  trial  of  an 
application  for  security.^     And  a  bond  given  by  an  executor  with- 
out sureties,  although  approved  by  the  judge  of  probate,  is  not 
such  a  bond  as  the  law  contemplates.'* 

§  252.    Circumstances  rendering  Bond  necessary.  —  It  is  not  pos- 
sible to  define  with    accuracy  the    precise    circumstances   which 
should  induce  the  proliate  court  to  demand  sureties  Facts  deemed 
from  an  executor  who  is  otherwise  exempt  under  the  courtsTo   ^ 
law  or  the  direction  of  the  testator.     Of  these  the  •;!^'^|;;;;',^fent 
probate  judge  must  necessarily  be  the  primary,  and  oi  bond. 
in  most  cases  the  sole  arbiter,  since  an  appellate  court  will  not 
interfere  with  the  exercise  of  his  discretion  unless  his  decision  be 
plainlv  in  conflict  with  the  letter  or  spirit  of  the  law.^     The  sev- 
eral statutory  provisions   on  the  subject  have  been  elucidated  in 
a  slight  degree  only  by  judicial  interpretations,  which  are  usually 
paraphrases  of  the   statute,  and  announcements  that  each  case 

T>\^.  1883,  p.  510,  §  21.     In  Texas,  a  res-  will  who  is  executrix  and  legatee  under 

ident,    but   not   a   nonresident,  executor  an  alleged  later  will  than  that  admitted  to 

niay  be  exempted  by  the  testator  from  probate  :  Cunningham  i:  Souza,  1  Redf. 

giving  bond  :  Rev.  St.  1888,  art.  1^70.  4C>-2  ;  and  n  fortiori,  a  legatee  :  Sullivan's 

1  Per  Rogers,  J.,  in  rominonwealth  v.  Will,  'Puck.  94;  Felton  r.  Sowles,  57  Vt. 
Forney,  3   W.   &  S.  353,   355 ;   Clark  v.  382, 383. 

Niles,  42  Miss.   460;  Atwell  n.  Helm,  7  ^  Merchant's   Will,  Tuck.  17;   Smitli 

Bush,  504  ;  Wood  v.  Wood,  4  Pai.  299  ;  v.   Philips,   supra ;    Cotterell   v.   Brock,  1 

Holmes  V.  Cock,  2  Barb.  Ch.  426  ;  Mande-  Bradf.  148. 

ville  V.  Mandeville,  8  Pai.  475;   Colgrove  *  Aberorombier.  Slieldon,8  Allen.  5:'2. 

V.  Hortnn.  11   Pai.  201  ;  Freeman  v.  Kel-  ^  Hempstead,  J.,  in  Bankhoad  <•.  Huh- 

logg,  4  Redf.  218,  224.  bard,  14  Ark.  208,  300  ;  and  in  Vermont 

2  For   instance   a    creditor:    Smith  i\  is  not  appealable:  Felton   r.  Sowles,  o7 
Phillips,  54  Ala.  8;    tlie  proponent  of  a  Vt.  3^;2. 


544  THE    ADMINISTRATION    BOND.  §  252 

presented  must  depend  upon  its  own  peculiar  features  and  cir- 
cumstances, of  which  the  probate  court  is  the  appropriate  judge. 
The  single  object  to  be  achieved  is  the  safety  of  the  estate  in  the 
executor's  hands,  and  its  faithful  administration  according  to  the 
intention  of  the  testator  so  far  as  the  same  is  sanctioned  by  law. 
If  the  probate  judge  is  satisfied  that  this  will  be  accomplished 
without  bond,  then  no  bond  is  required.  But  if  lie  have  reason 
to  suspect  the  integrity,  the  mental  capacity,  or  even  the  financial 
ability  of  the  executor,  he  should  protect  the  estate  and  the  inter- 
ests of  those  concerned   in  it  by  an  order  requiring  bond  with 

sufficient  sureties.  The  mere  poverty  of  an  executor, 
of^exe^'^tor  not  wliich  cxistcd  at  the  time  of  the  testator's  death, 
sufficient.  without  maladministration  or  loss  or  danger  of  loss 

from  misconduct  or  negligence,  does  not  authorize  the  require- 
ment of  a  bond;i  nor  the  fact  that  an  executor  is  not  possessed 
of  property  of  his  own  equal  in  value  to  that  of  the  estate  he  is  to 
administer,  if  there  is  no  ground  to  fear  that  the  trust  funds  in 
his  hands  are  in  danger  from  improvidence  and  want  of  pecuniary 
responsibility .2  An  application  to  compel  security  from  an  exec- 
utor ui)on  the  ground  of  his  pecuniary  irresponsibility  should  not 
be  entertained,  unless  it  states  particulars  from  which  it  will 
privia  facie  appear  that  the  estate  of  the  testator  w\\\  not  be  sate 

in  the  executor's  liands.^  Insolvency  is  not  per  se  a 
notVer"?  '^  sufficient  ground  to  require  bond  from  executors, 
sufficient.  ^q^eii  it  has  not  arisen  since  the  appointment  by  the 

testator.4  In  the  New  York  statute,  the  word  "precarious"  is 
used;  "  if  the  circumstances  of  the  executor  are  &o  precarious  as 
not  to  afford  adequate  security  for  the  administration  of  the 
estate,"  etc.  This  word  is  held  not  to  be  applicable  to  the  wealth 
or  poverty  of  the  executor,  although  it  might  be  to  his  bank- 
ruptcy .^     On  the  other  hand,  it  is  held  that  the  solvency  of  the 

1  Where,  umler  sncli  circumstances,  a  *  Willsnn  r.  Wliitfield,  38  Ga.  2G9  ; 
court  of  equity  requi.ed  l)ond  from  an  Bowmnn  v.  Wootton,  8  B.  Mon.  67. 
executor,  the  Supreme  Court  of  Nortii  &"  Tlie  experience  of  tiie  world,"  says 
Carohna'annulled  the  order,  and  dire(;ted  Potter,  J.,  delivering  the  opinion  of  the 
the  bond  to  be  surrendered:  Fairbairn  v.  Supreme  Court  of  New  York  in  Shields 
Fisher,  4  Jones  Eq.  .390.  v-  Shields,  60  Barb.  5G,  60,  "  if  appealed  to, 

2  The  surrogate's  decree,  requiring  would  demonstrate  the  truth,  that  it  is  not 
bond  under  these  circumstances,  was  re-  those  who  have  most  means  in  possession 
versed  by  Chancellor  Walworth  :  Man-  that  are  found  to  be  the  safest  and  best 
deville  V.  Mandeville,  8  Pai.  475.  trustees."     To  the  same  effect,  Cotterell 

3  Colgrove  v.  Horton,  11  Pai.  261,  re-  v.  Brock,  1  Bradf.  148. 
versing  order  of  surrogate  requiring  bond. 


§  253 


INVALIDITY    WITHOUT   BOND. 


545 


But  where  other  ^r.Sxe^utor 

a  sufficictit 
reason  why 


iiiile>s  it 
arises  after 
iiomiiiaticjii  by 
the  testator. 


executor  is  no  reason  why  bond  should  not  be  exacted  Nor  is  the 
if  he  is  guilty  of  mismanagement.^ 
circumstances  concur,  and  insolvency  ai-ises  after  the 
apnoinlment  by  the  testator,  it  mav  become  decisive  on  b"'"!  shaif  not 

>■  ^  •'  I  ^  •  n       -w       be  rerniired, 

the   question   of   ordering   security  to  be  givcn.^     In 

Oregon  it  has  been  decided  that  executors  in  whom  a 

legal  estate  is  vested  merely  for  the  purpose  of  sale 

and  conveyance  are  not  required  to  qualify  fully,  or  to  report  their 

proceedings  to  the  probate  court.^ 

§  253.  Invalidity  of  Administration  without  Bond.  —  Neither 
the  office  of  administrator,  nor,  in  cases  where  the  executor  is 
required  to  give  bond,  that  of  executor,  can  be  re-  Authority  of 
garded  as  filled  until  the  administration  bond  is  actu-  Jhe  n^Jt'Sln-'^'^' 
ally  given  ;  *  and  they  cannot  act  as  such  until  they  piete  until  bond 
have  qualified  themselves  by  taking  the  oath  of  ofiice 
and  giving  the  necessary  bond.^  If  the  bond  is  not  given  when 
required  by  the  probate  court,  although  the  will  direct  that  no 
bond  shall  be  taken,  the  court  may  revoke  the  letters  testamen- 
tary.^    And  one  who,  having  been  appointed   administrator,  fails 


1  McKennan's  Appeal,  27  Pa.  St.  237  ; 
Shieltls  V.  Shields,  supra. 

"  Thus,  where  two  of  the  tliree  exec- 
utors appointed  by  the  testator  had  died, 
and  the  tliird  had  become  insolvent,  the 
order  of  tlie  surrog.ate  requiring  security 
in  double  the  value  of  the  personal  prop- 
erty, including  tlie  possible  proceeds  of 
real  estate  which  the  executor  had  power 
to  sell,  was  affirmed  :  Holmes  v.  Cock,  2 
Barb.  Ch.  420.  And  where  an  executrix 
married  a  man  who  was  insolvent,  and 
wlio  had  conveyed  by  deed  to  liis  own 
children  all  the  property  he  had,  and  had 
mortgaged  a  negro,  belonging  to  the  es- 
tate his  wife  was  administering,  for  a 
private  debt  of  his  own,  the  decree  of 
the  chancellor  dismissing  the  bill  to  com- 
pel security  was  reversed  unanimously, 
and  security  ordered  to  be  given  :  Powel 
V.  Thompson,  4  Desaus.  162.  So  where 
the  executor  was  a  single  man,  without 
visible  property  except  a  claim  against 
the  testator's  estate  for  services  rendered 
his  father  after  reaching  majority,  where 
the  trust  was  to  continue  for  nearly  twenty 
years  and  the  executor  was  about  to  re- 
move out  of  the  State,  the  chancellor 
reversed  the  decision  of  the  surrogate 
VOL.  I.  —  3-3 


permitting  administration  without  secu- 
rity on  the  ground  that  these  circumstan- 
ces were  sufficient  to  require  security 
for  the  faithful  administration  of  the  es- 
tate independent  of  the  statutory  pro- 
vision requiring  security  in  cases  where 
the  executor  was,  or  was  about  to  be- 
come, a  non-resident  :  Wood  v.  Wood,  4 
Pai.  290,  302.  See  also  Felton  v.  Sowles, 
57  Vt.  382. 

3  Hogan  V.  Wyman,  2  Oreg.  302. 

4  Feltz  r.  Clark,  4  Humph.' 70;  O'Neal 
V.  Tisdale,  12  Tex.  40  ;  Commonwealth  v. 
Fornev,  .3  W.  &  S.  353  ;  F.s  parte  Brown, 
2  Bradf.  22;  Gardner  v.  Gantt,  10  Ala.  G66 ; 
Drane  '•.  Bayliss,  1  Humph.  174;  Succes- 
sion of  Bodenlieimer,  35  La.  An.  1034. 

5  Cleveland  v.  Ciiandler,  3  Stew.  489; 
Echols  r.  Barrett,  6  Ga.  443 ;  the  refusal 
of  an  executor  to  qualify  is  prima  facie 
evidence  of  his  refusal  to  act :    Uldreck 

.  V.  Simpson,  1  S.  C.  283.  Letters  are  not 
invalid  because  the  bond  is  made  and 
signed  before  appointment  :  Morris  v. 
Ciiicago,  R.  I.  &  P.  R.  R.,  65  Iowa,  727. 

«  Post,  §  270 ;  Clark  v.  Niles,  42  Miss. 
460.  But  such  order  is  not  final  until  it 
is  enforced,  and  hence  cannot  be  appealed 
from  :  Atwell  i-.  Helm,  7  Bush,  504. 


546  THE   ADMINTSTEATION   BOND.  §  254 

to  give  the  bond,  cannot  afterward  intervene  in  a  contest  between 
creditors  for  administration.^  In  Pennsylvania  this  rule  has 
been  so  rigorously  construed,  that  one  who  acted  under  letters  of 
administration  otherwise  properly  granted,  but  who  had  given 
bond  with  one  surety  where  the  law  required  two,  was  held  to 
act  as  administrator  of  his  own  wrong,  the  bond  being  held  void, 
and  the  letters  likewise.^  And  so  where  an  administrator  de  bo- 
nis non  gave  bond  containing  the  conditions  of  an  administrator's 

„  ,  ,  .  . ,  bond  in  chief,  it  was  held  void.^  But  usually  the  fail- 
But  admimstra-  '  _   _  _  •'  _ 

tion  is  not         ure  of  the  administrator  to  give  bond  does  not  avoid 

usually  void  „,..  ., 

for  want  of  the  letters  oi  admmistration,  but  only  makes  them 
voidable  ;  *  nor  does  the  cancellation  of  the  bond  per 
se  revoke  the  appointment,  or  disqualify  the  administrator  from 
bringing  suit.^  In  Louisiana,  an  executor  is  required  to  settle 
up  the  estate  in  one  year,  and  if  he  does  not,  to  give  bond  at  the 
end  thereof,  in  default  of  which  he  should  be  dismissed,  and  an 
administrator  de  bonis  non  with  the  will  annexed  —  there  called 
dative  executor  —  appointed.^ 

§  254.  When  Additional  Bond  may  be  ordered.  —  Whenever  it 
becomes  apparent  that  the  sureties  of  an  administration  bond 
^     ,  have  become   insolvent,  or  that  the   penalty  in  the 

Court  may  '  . 

order  addi-  boud  is  in  too  Small  an  amount,  or  that  the  bond  is 
whenever  from  any  cause  insufficient  or  inadequate,  the  execu- 

necessary.  ^^^  ^^  administrator  should  be  ruled  to  give  other  or 
further  security.'''  For  failure  to  comply  with  such  an  order,  the 
executor  or  administrator  may  be  removed  from  office  by  the 
Any  person  j^i^c^  of  probatc.^  Any  person  in  interest  may  peti- 
interested  may    ^jq^  ^j^q  probatc  court  for  an  Order  to  compel  addi- 

move  lor  addi-  ^  '■ 

tionai  bond.       tioual  or  better   security,   and  on  the  trial  of   such 

1  Howard  v.  Worrill,  42  Ga.  307.  6  Peale  v.  White,  7  La.  An.  449. 

2  Mc Williams  v.  Hopkins,  4  Rawle,  ^  Killcrease  v.  Killcrease,  7  How. 
382;  Bradley  v.  Commonwealth,  31  Pa.  (Miss.)  311;  Ellis  v.  McBride,  27  Miss. 
St.  522.  And  in  Picquet,  Appellant,  5  155;  Atkinson  v.  Christian,  3  Gratt.  448. 
Pick.  65,  76,  Parker,  C.  J.  intimates  that  "  A  new  bond  may  always  he  required, 
probably  the  administration  would  be  if  the  original  bond  appear  at  any  time  to 
void  where  no  bond  is  given.  be  inadequate  "  :  Wells,  J.,  in  Hannum  v. 

3  Small  u. Commonwealth, 8  Pa.  St.  101.     Day,  105  Mass.  33,  38.     Gary,  in  his  work 
*  Sullivan  v.  Tioga  R.  R.,  44  Hun,  304,     on  Probate  Law,  bases  this  authority  of 

307;    Leatherwood  v.   Sullivan,  81   Ala.  probate  courts  on  their  inherent  powers 

458  ;    Ex  parte    Maxwell,  37   Ala.   3G2  ;  to  prevent  a  failure  of  justice  :  p.  113,  n. 

Jones  V.  Gordon,  2  Jones  Eq.  352  ;  Spen-  20  ;  but  it  is  expressly  conferred  in  most, 

cer  V.  Gaboon,  4  Dev.  L.  225;  Slagle  v.  if  not  all,  of  the  States  by  statute. 
Entrekin,  44  Oh.  St.  637.  640.  ^  National  Bank  of  Troy  v.  Stanton, 

5  Clarke  v.  Rice,  15  R.  I.  132.  116  Mass.  435. 


§  255  LIABILITY   OF   SURETIES.  547 

motion  it  is  sufficient,  as  already  indicated,  that  their  interest 
be  alleged  under  oath.^  The  service  of  notice  upon  the  executor 
or  administrator  in  such  proceeding  is  generally  prescribed  in 
the  statutes  of  the  several  States ;  in  Louisiana  it  has  been 
held  that  service  upon  the  attorney  at  law  of  the  executor,  in  the 
absence  of  the  latter  from  the  State,  was  sufficient.^  On  the 
trial  of  a  motion  for  new  bond,  on  the  ground  of  the  insufficiency 
of  the  sureties,  the  sureties  may  prove  their  sufficiency  by  their  own 
oath,  and  then  it  will  devolve  upon  the  other  party  to  show  their 
insuffiicicncy.3  As  to  the  statement  of  facts  necessary  statutes  deter- 
to  authorize  the  probate  court  to  order  additional  f^its^wiif*^ 
security,  it  is  sufficient  to  refer  to  the  provisions  of  »"fi^f""'=^*^ 

•'  '  t"  requirement  of 

the  statutes  upon  the  subject,  which  generally  indi-  new  bond, 
cate  the  circumstances  under  which  further  or  other  security  may 
be  required  with  sufficient  clearness.  Insolvency,  death,  or  re- 
moval from  the  State  of  the  sureties,  and  inadequacy  of  the  pen- 
alty, are  the  most  usual.  The  insolvency  of  the  principal  in  the 
bond,  while  the  sureties  remain  solvent,  is  no  ground  for  increas- 
ing the  amount  of  the  bond.*  In  California  the  powers  of  the 
executor  may  be  suspended  until  the  application  for  an  order  to 
give  new  bond  can  be  heard.^ 

§  255.  Liability   of  Sureties,   and   Effect   of  New  Bonds.  —  It  re- 
sults from  the  nature  of  the  obligation  entered  into  by  sureties  on 
administration  bonds,  that  the  refusal  or  neglect  of  g^,reties  are 
the  principal  to  obey  or  comply  with  the  judgment  or  concluded  by 
decree  of  a  court  of  competent  jurisdiction  constitutes  agamst  their 
a  breach  rendering  the  sureties  liable  ;  and  that  there-  ' 

fore  the   sureties   are   bound   and   concluded   by  the    judgment 
against   the  principal,^    unless  there  was  collusion  or  fraud  be- 
tween the  principal  and  those  who  seek  satisfaction  unless  oh- 
out  of  the  sureties,  which  must  be  established  in  a  or  collusion, 
direct  proceeding.'     It  is  for  this  reason  that  sureties,  though  not 
parties  to  the  record,  nor  beneficially  interested  in  pro-  But  may  appeal 
ceedings  by  or  against  executors  or  administrators,  are  memi  against 
allowed  the  right  of  appeal  from  judgments  against  ^^^  principals. 

1  Ante,  §  251.  Martin  v.  Tally,  72  Ala.  2.S,  HO ;  McClel- 

2  Succession  of  Bobb,  27  La.  An.  344.  Ian  i\  Downey,  6-3  Cal.  520  ;  Morrison  v. 
8  Ross  V.  Minis,  7  Sm.  &  M.  121.  Lavell,  81  Va.  519;  Slajrle  v.  Entrekin, 
1  Sharkey's  Estate,  2  Phila.  276.  44  Oh.  St.  637 ;  post,  §  412. 

5  Estate  of  White,  53  Cal.  19.  ''  Wolff  v.  Schaeffer,  4  Mo.  App.  867, 

6  Speer  v.  Richmond,  3  Mo.  App.  572,     875;  s.  c.  74  Mo.    154,   158;   Scofield   ». 
573;  People  v.  Stacy,  11  111.  App.  506;     Churchill,  72  N.  Y.  565,  570. 


548  THE   ADMINISTRATION   BOND.  §  255 

their  principals.^  But  the  judgment,  to  bind  the  sureties,  must 
self-evidently  be  one  that  is  enforceable  against  the  principal ; 
unless  there  be  judgment  de  bonis  propriis,  the  sureties  are  not 
liable  ;  ^  nor  does  proof  that  assets  came  into  the  administrator's 
hands  make  out  a.  prima  facie  liability  for  devastavit.^ 

It  is  obvious  that  the  purpose  of  a  new  or  additional  bond 

ordered  by  the  court  ex  mero  motu,  or  moved  by  some  interested 

person  for  the  better  protection  of  the  estate,  or  vol- 

Additional  .,         .  .       .       ,    .  ...  „ 

bond  is  cumu-  untarily  given  by  the  principal  m  anticipation  oi  such 

qliired  by'^the  ^n  ordcr,  is  to  add  the  security  resulting  from  the 

mS,'oVr'"  new  to  that  afforded  by  the  old  bond.     Hence  the  es- 

motion  of  some  ^qXq  is  protected,  after  the  giving  of  the  new  bond,  by 

one  interested  j-  7  00  7     j 

in  the  estate  as  both  scts  of  surctics  ;  thosc  Oil  the  first  bond  remain- 

beneticiary.  .  titi  •  tii 

mg,  and  those  on  the  second  bond  becoming,  liabie 
for  any  breach  happening  after  the  new  bond  is  given.*  Where 
And  original  the  Condition  of  the  bond  is  that  the  principal  shall 
bontTsmeVare  "  account  for,  pay,  and  deliver  all  money  and  property 
both  liable.  q£  ^^:^^  estatc,"  the  sureties  on  the  last  bond  are  liable 
for  the  loss  following  any  defalcation,  conversion,  or  devastavit 
committed  by  the  principal,  whether  before  or  after  the  giving  of 
the  last  bond,  because  the  non-payment  after  an  order  by  the  court 
having  jurisdiction  constitutes  a  distinct  breach  of  the  bond ;  ^ 
tlie  same  result  follows  where  tlie  terms  of  the  bond  are  to  "  do 
and  perform  all  other  acts  which  may  be  required  of  him  at  any 
time  by  law."  ^  In  such  case  both  sets  of  sureties  are  liable  :  the 
first,  because  the  conversion  or  other  misconduct  leading  to  the 
loss  of  the  assets  occurred  during  the  time  when  they  were  sureties ; 
the  last,  because  the  nonpayment  constituted  a  breach  while  they 

1  McCartney  v.  Garneau,  4  Mo.  App.  himself  to  be  a  surety,  an  ineffectual  de- 

566,  567;   People  v.   Stacy,  11  111-  App.  cree  was  made  discharging  him,  and  an- 

506,  508;  Bush's  Appeal,  102  Pa.  St.  502,  other  bond  was  given,  it  was  lield  that 

504.  both  bonds  were  valid  ;    and  that  each 

^  Wilbur  V.  Hutto,  25  S.  C.  246  ;  Ben-  set  of  sureties  was  responsible,  inter  sese, 

nett  V.  Graham,  71  Ga.  211.  in  proportion  to  the  amount  of  the  bonds 

3  State  V.  Huether,  4  Mo.  App.  575.  and   the  liabilities    incurred  :    Brooks  v. 

*  "  The  plain  intent  of  these  acts  was,  Whitmore,  142  Mass.  399. 
that  the  security  should  be  accumulative,  ^  Wolff  v.  Schaeffer,  74  Mo.  154,  158, 

and  not  an  entire  substitution  of  the  one  affirming  the  Missouri  Court  of  Appeals, 
bond  for  the  other"  :  Per  Holmes,  J.,  in  ^  Pinkstaff  v.  People,  59  111.  148,  150. 

State   V.  Drury,   36   Mo.   281,  286;   see  To  same  effect,  Scofield  i'.  Churchill,  72 

Wood  V.  WiUiams,  61  Mo.  63;  State  v.  N.Y.565;  Lacoste  r.  Sphvalo,  64  Cal.  35; 

Fields,  53  Mo.  474,  477  ;  Haskell  v.  Far-  Foster  v.  Wise,  16  N.  East.  (Ohio),  687, 

rar,  56  Mo.  497.     So  where,  upon   appli-  and  authorities  cited, 
cation  of  one  who  erroneously  supposed 


§  255  LIABILITY   OF   SURETIES.  549 

were  such.^     But  the  sureties  themselves  are  entitled  Ori-inai  sure- 
to  relief  in  case  of  the  insolvency  of  either  principal  emttTirnew 
or  co-surety  on  the  bond,  or  when  any  of  the  co-sure-  oli't^iefr^''^*"" 
ties  have  died  or  left  the  State,  or  when  the  principal  motion. 
is  wasting  or  mismanaging  the  estate.    Provision  is  made  by  stat- 
ute in  many  States  enabling  sureties  to  protect  themselves  against 
future  liability  on  their  bonds  by  moving  for  an  order  against 
their  principal  to  give  counter  security,  or  a  new  bond,  and  in 
default  thereof  to  revoke  his  authority .^     In  Missouri  the  statute 
distinctly  points  out  the  effect  of  a  new  or  additional  bond :  if 
given  in  response  to  the  complaint  of  a  person  bound  as  security 
in  the  bond,  the  sureties  on  the  first  bond  are  discharged  from 
any  misconduct  of  the  principal  after  the  new  bond  is  accepted  and 
filed  ;  if  given  in  compliance  with  an  order  of  court  made  "  when- 
ever it  shall  appear  necessary  and  proper,"  ^  the  new  bond  is  simply 
cumulative,  and  the  old  sureties  remain  liable.     In  some  States  a 
surety  on  an  administration  bond  is  entitled  to  be  re-  Surety  may  be 
lieved  from  future  liability  under  it  on  his  own  motion,  [jabjiitv  for'" 
by  simply  alleging  that  he  conceives  himself  to  be  en-  fauiTbv'^hL'^^' 
dangered  by  his  suretyship,  without  making  any  proof  own  motion. 
whatever  ;  *  while  in  others  proof  is  required  of  one  or  more  of  the 
facts  named  in  the  statute  as  authorizing  such  surety's  release.^ 

Before  any  such  order  can  be  made,  there  must  be  notice  or 
citation  to,  or  an  appearance  by,  the  administrator  ;  ^  but  he  can- 
not be  cited  for  the  purpose  of  accounting  and  taking 

Notice  must 

bond  for  the  balance  that  may  be  found  in  his  hands."  be  given  to  the 

m  T    J-    •  1  T        !•  ji  i         administrator. 

ihe  proper  relief  is  an  order  directmg  the  executor 
or  administrator  to  give  a  new  bond  with  additional  sureties,  or 
to  revoke,  in  default  thereof,  the  letters  granted,  and  appoint  an 
administrator  de  bonis  non.^     An  order  to  pay  the  money  found 

1  State  V.  Berning,  74  Mo.  87,  97,  af-  242,  245 ;  Jones  v.  Ritter,  56  Ala.  270, 
firming  6  Mo.  App.  105  ;  Lewis  y.  Gambs,  280;  People  v.  Curry,  59  111.  35;  Allen 
0  Mo.  App.  138,  141.  V.  Sanders,  34  N.  J.  Eq.  203. 

2  Brooks  i'.  Whitmore,  1-30  Mass.  .3.56.  &  Valcourt  v.  Sessions,  30  Ark.  515 ; 

3  Wood  V.  Williams,  01  Mo.  G3  ;  State  Sanders  v.  Edwards,  29  La.  An.  696 ;  see 
zj.  Wulff,  10  Mo.  App.  95,  98  (holding  the  Missouri  cases,  supra,  p.  548,  note  4; 
provision  discharging  former  sureties  in-  Succession  of  Bouttc,  32  La.  An.  556  ; 
applicable  to  the  public  administrator).  Sifford  ;-.  Morrison,  63  Md.  14. 

■1  De  Lane's  Case,  2  Brev.  167  (Bay,  6  Gilliam  i-.  McJunken,  2  S.  C.  442,  440. 

J.,   dissenting)  ;    affirmed   in   McKay    v.  '  Waterman  v.  Bigham,  2  Hill,  (S.  C.) 

Donald,  8  Rich.  L.  331 ;  Lewis  v.  Watson,  512. 

3  Redf.  43;  Johnson  v.  Fuquay,  1  Dana,  ^  Owens  v.  Walker,  2  Strobh.  Eq.  289; 

614 ;  Harrison  v.  Turbeville,  2  Humph.  Waterman  v.  Bigham,  supra ;  Gilliam  v. 


550  THE   ADMINISTRATION  BOND.  §  255 

to  be  due  from  the  administrator  into  court,  is  self-evidently  void, 
as  well  as  a  commitment  for  contempt  of  court  in  refusing  to  obey 
such  order.i  But  if  the  surety  himself  be  appointed  administrator 
de  bonis  non,  his  liability  on  the  bond  constitutes  a  debt  which 
becomes  assets  in  his  hands,  although  the  amount  has  not  been 
fixed  by  any  account  or  judgment  rendered,  and  for  which  his 
sureties  are  liable.^ 

If  upon  revocation  of  the  letters  of  an  administrator  for  want 
of  a  new  bond  ordered  on  the  motion  of  his  surety,  letters  de  bonis 
Original  sure-  Hon  be  granted  to  the  same  person,  the  former  sure- 
iruie'formef^  tics  are  thereby  fully  discharged,  because  the  adminis- 
be'appotiueT  trator  and  his  successor  are  the  same  person,  so  that 
de  bonis  non.  there  Can  be  no  accounting  between  the  old  and  the 
new  administration,  and  it  must  be  presumed  that  the  administra- 
tor de  bonis  non  has  received  from  himself  all  the  assets  belonging 
, ,     to  the  estate.^     But  where  a  new  bond  is  given,  and 

How  liable  if  .  .  f  .  ,.       .,. 

there  is  no  rev-  there  is  no  rcvocation  of  authority,  the  liability  con- 

OCation  of  au-         ..  •,i  in  n  •  J^  !•  -I 

thority,  but  a  tmucs  HI  the  old  as  well  as  in  the  new  sureties,  and 
new  ou  .  •  j^  g^^i^  case,  as  between  themselves,  the  new  sureties 
are  primarily,  the  old  collaterally  liable.  If  the  first  sureties  are 
made  to  pay,  they  are  entitled  to  be  reimbursed  in  full  from  the 
second  sureties ;  but  if  these  pay,  they  are  not  entitled  to  recover 
from  the  former.  And  hence,  if  the  former  sureties  are  released, 
the  latter  are  not  thereby  affected ;  but  if  the  latter  are  released, 
this  will  discharge  the  former  also.*  In  Tennessee  it  is  held  that 
ill  such  case  the  second  set  of  sureties  are  primarily  liable  to  the 

McJunken,  supra ;  Morgan  v.  Dodge,  44  sureties  on  the  first  bond  are  therebj'  re- 

N.  H.  255,  with  a  collection  of  numerous  leased  :  Modawell  v.  Hudson,  80  Ala.  265. 

autliorities.  *  Field  v.  Pelot,  1  McMullen  Eq.  309, 

1  Gilliam  r.  McJunken,  s?(pm.  387.     But  see  dissenting  opinionb  of  Clian- 

2  Choate  v.  Thorndyke,  138  Mass.  371.  cellors  Dunkin  and  Johnson,  both   hold- 

3  Enicks  v.  Powell,  2  Strobh  Eq.  196,  ing  that  in  such  case  the  sureties  on  the 
206  ;  Whitworth  v.  Oliver,  .39  Ala.  286  ;  first  bond  were  discharged  :  p.  389  et  seq. 
Steele  v.  Graves,  68  Ala.  17,  21  ;  Lingle  v.  To  the  same  effect,  Trimmier  v.  Trail,  2 
Cook,  32  Gratt.  262.  It  was  held  in  Ala-  Bai.  L.  480,  486 ;  Joyner  v.  Cooper,  2 
baraa,  that  where  an  administrator  re-  Bai.  L.  199;  People  v.  Curry,  59  111.  35; 
signed,  and  was  again  appointed,  with  People  v.  Lott,  27  111.  215.  Tiie  second 
new  sureties,  the  beneficiaries  may  hold  bond  becomes  the  primary  security,  even 
either  set  of  sureties  for  a  balance  decreed  to  such  of  the  sureties  on  the  first  bond 
against  him  for  the  first  administration  ;  as  did  not  petition  ;  but  where,  by  an 
but  where,  both  administrations  being  set-  error,  the  balance  is  shown  to  be  much 
tied  on  the  same  day,  the  balance  ascer-  smaller  than  the  true  balance  on  the  ap- 
tained  on  the  settlement  of  the  first  admin-  plication  for  new  security,  the  first  bond 
istration  is  carried,  at  the  instance  of  the  is  primarily  liable  to  the  extent  of  such 
distributees,  as  a  debt  into  the  second,  the  error:  Bobo  v.  Vaiden,  20  S.  C.  27L 


§  255  LIABILITY   OF   SURETIES.  651 

extent  of  their  bond,  and,  if  they  prove  insufficient,  the  first  sure- 
ties arc  lialjle  for  any  conversion  before  their  release ;  the  second 
sureties  account  first  for  any  default  after  their  suretyship,  then 
for  any  that  may  have  been  committed  before.^  In  Illinois  the 
sureties  may,  if  the  executor  or*  administrator,  on  their  motion, 
give  a  new  bond  relating  back  to  the  time  of  the  original  grant  of 
letters,  be  discharged  from  all  liability  for  past  as  well  as  future 
acts ;  but  unless  the  new  bond  be  given  in  such  form,  the  release 
can  only  be  as  to  future  default.^  In  the  absence  of  statutory 
provisions  on  the  subject,  the  surety  discharged  from  further  lia- 
bility is  clearly  liable  for  all  breaches  of  the  bond  during  the  time 
he  was  surety .^  In  Virginia  and  West  Virginia  the  statute  pro- 
vides that  a  new  bond,  without  any  express  provision  therein  to 
that  effect,  shall  bind  the  obligors  therein  to  indemnify  the  sure- 
ties in  the  former  bond  against  all  loss  or  damage  in  consequence 
of  executing  the  former  bond.'* 

It  is  sometimes  of  importance  to  ascertain  in  what  capacity  a 
principal,  who  has  given  bond  as  executor  or  administrator,  and 
also  as  guardian,  trustee,  or  other  fiduciary,  with  different  sure- 
ties, is  chargeable  with  assets.  In  such  case  it  is  to  be  remem- 
bered that,  where  the  obligation  to  pay  and  the  right  to  receive 
are  united  in  the  same  person,  the  law  operates  the  appropriation 
of  the  fund  to  the  discharge  of  the  debt.^  Hence,  where  an  ad- 
ministrator who  is  also  guardian  of  a  minor  distributee,  has  made 
final  settlement,  and  there  is  an  order  directing  the  payment  of 
the  distributive  shares,  such  order  will  operate  to  charge  him  in 
his  capacity  as  guardian,  and  relieve  his  sureties  on  the  adminis- 
tration bond  ;^  but  until  such  final  settlement  is  made,  or  the  as- 
sets accounted  for,  the  former  sureties  remain  liable.'  But  where 
an  administrator  has  no  further  use  for  assets  as  such,  and  is  also 
guardian  of  a  distributee,  he  will  be  treated  as  holding  them  as 
o-uardian,  even  if  he  has  not  made  final  settlement.^  An  insolvent 
fiduciary  cannot,  however,  transfer  his  indebtedness  in  one,  to  him- 
self in  another  capacity,  so  as  to  exonerate  one  set  of  sureties  and 
charge  another,  without  some  act  in  manifestation  of  the  transfer.^ 

1  Morris  r.  Morris,  9  Heisk.  814.  ^  Ruffin  v.  Harrison,  supra,  affirmed  in 

2  North,  Prob.  Pr.'§§  262,  263;  People  s.  c.  86  N.  C.  190  ;  Bell  v.  People,  94  111. 
V.  Lott,  supra ;  People  v.  Curry,  supra.  230  ;  Seegar  v.  Betton,  6  Har.  &  J.  162. 

3  MeKim  v.  Blake,  132  Mass.  343.  "^  Ruffin  v.  Harrison,  81  N.  C.  208,  217. 

4  Lingle  v.  Cook,  32  Gratt.  262,  274;  ^  United  States  v.  May,  4  Mack.  4, 
Hooper  v.  Hooper,  29  W.  Va.  276,  299.  citinti  numerous  Maryland  cases. 

5  Ruffin  V.  Harrison,  81  N.  C.  208,  212,  »  See  post,  §  311,  note  at  close  of 
citing  earlier  cases.  section. 


552 


THE  ADMINISTRATION   BOND. 


§256 


§  256.  Technical  Execution  of  the  Bond.  —  The  form  in  which 
bonds  are  to  be  taken  from  executors  and  administrators  is  gen- 
erally prescribed  by  statute,  and  errors  may  be  avoided  by  the 
exercise  of  ordinary  care  and  attention  on  the  part  of  the  probate 
Bonds  con-  judgc  or  clcrk.  In  some  instances,  these  bonds  have 
ag^nst^oua-^  ^^Gn  construcd  with  technical  strictness  against  the 
s^^®*  obligees,  and  held  void  as  statutory  bonds  where  they 

deviated  from  the  statutory  form  ;  i  but  the  general  rule  is  to 
General  rule  to  construc  them  vigorously  against  the  obligors,  and 
strictly  against  witli  the  utmost  liberality  in  f  aver  of  the  parties  to  be 
0  igors.  protected  by  them.^     Bonds  have  been  held  good  and 

sufficient  although  not  signed  by  the  administrator  ^  (but  this 
must  not  be  understood  as  applying  to  an  ordinary  administration 
bond,  which  is  void  even  as  to  the  sureties  when  not  sigued  by  the 
principal^)  ;  although  the  names  of  the  sureties  did  not  appear  in 


^  As  in  the  cases  of  McWilliams  v. 
Hopkins,  4  Rawle,  382;  Bradley  v.  Com- 
monwealth, 31  Pa.  St.  522;  Picquet,  Ap- 
pellant, 5  Pick.  65,  and  Small  v.  Common- 
wealth, 8  Pa.  St.  101,  cited  under  §  253, 
ante ;  also  Arnold  v.  Babbit,  5  J.  J.  Marsh. 
665 ;  Cowling  v.  Nansemond  Justice.'',  6 
Rand.  349,  holding  that  the  omission  of 
the  names  of  the  obligees,  of  the  executor, 
and  of  the  court  made  the  bond  fatally  de- 
fective ;  Koberts  v.  Colvin,  3  Gratt.  358,  de- 
ciding that  no  action  can  be  brought  on  an 
administrator's  bond  containing  no  pro- 
vision for  the  benefit  of  creditors  ;  Frazier 
V.  Frazier,  2  Leigh,  642,  and  Walker  v. 
Crosland,  3  Rich.  Eq.  23,  holding  the  bond 
of  an  administrator  with  the  will  annexed 
in  the  form  of  an  ordinary  administrator's 
bond,  containing  no  reference  to  the  will, 
bad  as  a  statutory  bond  ;  to  same  effect, 
Frye  v.  Crockett,  77  Me.  157  ;  also  Morrow 
V.  Peyton,  8  Leigh,  54.  In  some  of  these 
cases  it  is  intimated  that  the  bonds  were 
nevertheless  good  common  law  bonds. 
But  in  Ohio  bends  are  construed  with  the 
utmost  rigor  against  the  obligees  ;  Ran- 
ney,  J.,  in  McGovney  v.  State,  20  Ohio,  93, 
which  was  a  suit  on  an  executor's  bond, 
adopts  and  indorses  the  language  of  the 
majority  of  the  court  in  State  v.  Medary, 
17  Ohio,  554,  565:  "The  bond  spealcs 
for  itself,  and  the  law  is  that  it  shall  so 
speak,  and  that  the  liability  of  sureties  is 
limited  to  the  exact  letter  of  the  bond. 
Sureties   stand   upon   the  words  of  the 


bond,  and  if  the  words  will  not  make  them 
liable,  nothing  can.  There  is  no  construc- 
tion, no  equity  against  sureties.  If  the 
bond  cannot  have  effect  according  to  its 
exact  words,  the  law  does  not  authorize 
the  court  to  give  it  effect  in  some  other 
way,  in  order  that  it  may  prevail."  It 
was  accordingly  held  that  parol  evidence 
was  inadmissible  to  show  that  the  name 
of  the  testator  was  inserted  in  the  bond 
as  James  L.  Findley  instead  of  Joseph  L. 
Findley  by  a  mistake  of  the  clerk,  and 
that  on  account  of  the  variance  there 
could  be  no  recovery  under  the  bond. 
The  decision  in  the  case  of  State  v. 
Medary,  referred  to  above,  was  rendered 
against  the  dis;^ent  of  Hitchcock,  J.,  who 
contended  for  a  more  liberal  construction, 
and  cited  Gardener  v.  Woodyear,  1  Oluo, 
170,  State  v.  Findley,  10  Ohio,  61,  and 
Reynolds  v.  Rogers,  5  Ohio,  169,  176,  in 
support  of  his  position  and  as  inconsistent 
with  that  of  the  majority  opinion. 

2  Rose  V.  Winn,  51  Tex.  545  ;  Ordinary 
V.  Cooley,  30  N.  J.  L.  179;  Gerould  v. 
Wilson,  81  N.  Y.  573,  577. 

3  Where  a  new  surety  was  required,  a 
bond  reciting  the  former  bond  and  exe- 
cuted by  the  single  new  surety  was  held  to 
be  in  proper  form  :  Patullo's  Case,  Tuck. 
140.  The  bond  may  be  signed  before 
the  appointment  is  made  :  Morris  v.  Chi- 
cago, R.  L  &  P.  R.  R.,  65  Iowa,  727. 

*  Wood  V.  Washburn,  2  Pick.  24. 


256 


TECHNICAL  EXECUTION   OF   THE  BOND. 


'>5Z 


the  body  of  tlie  bond,'  when  no  amount  of  penalty  is  mentioned  ;2 
or  the  name  of  the  decedent  is  omitted  ;3  and  a  blank  left  in  a  bond 
at  the  time  of  signing  may  afterward,  before  approval  or  accept- 
ance, be  filled  in.*  And  an  executor's,  guardian's,  or  administra- 
tor's bond  will  be  obligatory  and  effective,  although  its  conditions 
arc  not  strictly  in  accordance  with  the  requirements  of  the  statute, 
but  provide,  in  different  and  more  general  terms,  for  the  faithful 
execution  of  the  trust.^  Thus,  a  bond  conditioned  that  the  exec- 
utor shall  administer  according  to  the  tvill  was  held  valid  :^  so  a 
bond  of  an  administrator  de  bonis  non  expressed  to  be  "  with  the 
will  annexed,"  although  otherwise  in  the  form  of  an  ordinary  ad- 
ministration bond  ;''  and  where  a  residuary  legatee  gave  the  bond 
as  executor,  containing  conditions  not  required  of  a  residuary 
legatee  and  omitting  an  important  condition  required  by  law,  it 
■was  held  that  this  was  a  good  common  law  bond,  and  sufficient  to 
support  the  grant  of  letters.^     It  is  also  held  that  a  bond  payable 


1  If  the  sureties  signed,  sealed,  and 
delivered  it,  they  are  bound  :  Joyner  r. 
Cooper,  2  Bai.  L.  199,  resting  on  tlie  au- 
thority of  Stone  V.  Wilson,  4  McCord, 
203. 

2  In  such  case  the  bond  will  be  con- 
strued with  reference  to  the  law  in  pursu- 
ance to  which  it  is  given,  and  the  sureties 
are  liable  for  the  amount  for  which  the  law 
directs  such  bonds  to  be  given.  And  it  is 
immaterial  that  at  the  time  of  the  execution 
of  the  bond  no  inventory  had  been  filed  : 
Soldini  r.  Ilyanis,  15  La.  An.  551,  and  au- 
thorities cited  in  Mason  v.  Fuller,  12  La. 
An.  68  ;  Shaker's  App.,43  Pa.  St.  83,  87. 

'^  Since  the  grant  of  letters  and  the 
execution  of  the  bond  are  parts  of  one 
and  the  same  transaction,  the  letters  may 
be  referred  to,  to  explain  the  ambiguity 
of  the  bond  in  which  the  name  of  the 
decedent  is  left  out  :  State  v.  Trice,  15 
Mo.  375. 

4  Rev.  St.  Ohio,  1880,  §  6.  But  in  an 
official  bond  the  penalty  cannot  be  in- 
serted by  a  third  person,  in  the  absence 
of  the  obligor,  without  express  authority 
under  his  hand  and  seal :  State  v.  Boring, 
15  Ohio,  507,  approved  in  Famuiener  v. 
Anderson,  15  Oh.  St.  473. 

5  Probate  Court  v.  Strong,  27  Vt.  202 ; 
Lanier  v.  Irvine,  21  Minn.  447  ;  Judge  of 
Probate  ;■.  Claggett,  36  N.  H.  381  ;  Pettin- 
gill  V.  rettingill,  60  Me.  411 ;  Casoni  v. 


Jerome,  58  N.  Y.  315 ;  Ordinary  v.  Cooley, 
30  N.  J.  L.  179,  and  authorities  ;  Hol- 
brook  V.  Bentley,  32  Conn.  502  ;  Peebles 
V.  Watts,  9  Dana,  102;  Newton  v.  Cox, 
76  Mo.  352;  McFadden  v.  Ilewett,  78  Me. 
24,  28. 

•5  Where  the  statute  prescribes  that 
executors  shall  give  bond  "  in  the  same 
manner  administrators  are  by  law  obliged 
to  be  bound,"  it  is  not  necessary  that  the 
executor's  bond  should  be  in  the  precise 
form  of  an  administrator's  bond  ;  and  the 
condition  in  the  administrator's  bond  to 
"  administer  according  to  law  "  is  prop- 
erly stated  in  an  executor's  bond  to 
"  administer  according  to  the  trill,"  the 
law  requiring  the  executor  to  administer 
according  to  the  will :  Hall  v.  Gushing, 
9  Pick.  395. 

■^  Hartzell  v.  Commonwealth,  42  Pa. 
St.  453. 

8  Cleaves  v.  Dockray,  67  Me.  118,  con- 
taining a  list  of  authorities  in  support  of 
the  doctrine,  that  a  bond  may  be  good  at 
common  law  although  not  in  conformity 
with  the  statute :  Ware  r.  Jackson,  24 
Me.  166 ;  Lord  v.  Lancey,  21  Me.  408 ; 
Clap  V.  Cofran,  7  Mass.  98;  Sweetser  v. 
Hay,  2  Gray,  49;  Stephens  r.  Crawford, 
3  Ga.  499 ;  Williams  v.  Shelby,  2  Oreg. 
144 ;  in  such  case  however,  the  bond 
cannot  be  sued  in  the  mime  of  a  successor 
to  the  judge  to  whom  it  is  given  :  Frye 


554  THE  ADMINISTRATION    BOND.  §  256 

"  to  the  Governor,"  instead  of,  as  the  statute  required,  "  to  the 
State,"  is  not  for  that  reason  void.^  A  bond  may  be  voidable  at 
the  option  of  the  obligees,  but  binding  on  the  obligors  ;2  and  one 
defective  by  reason  of  the  mistake  or  ignorance  of  the  clerk  will 
be  aided  in  equity  as  against  the  sureties.^  So  it  is  said  that  the 
conjunction  "  or  "  should  be  construed  as  "  and,"  if  necessary  to 
give  validity  to  the  bond ;  *  and  that  a  strict  and  technical  con- 
formity to  the  statute  is  not  essential  to  the  validity  of  the  bond, 
if  it  substantially  conform  thereto,  and  does  not  vary  in  any  mat- 
ter to  the  prejudice  of  the  rights  of  the  party  to  whom  or  for  whose 
benefit  it  is  given.^  Where  a  bond  contains  more  than  the  statute 
prescribes,  the  stipulations  not  required  by  the  statute  may  be 
rejected  as  surplusage,  and  the  bond  still  be  regarded  as  a  statu- 
tory bond,  and  sued  on  as  such.*^  Although  the  statute  require 
two  sureties,  the  bond  is  valid  if  signed  by  only  oneJ  But  the 
alteration  of  an  administration  bond  executed  by  the  principal 
and  two  sureties,  by  increasing  the  amount  of  the  penalty  with 
the  consent  of  the  principal,  but  without  the  knowledge  of  the 
sureties,  discharges  the  latter ;  and  the  execution  of  such  bond 
by  two  additional  sureties  who  did  not  know  of  the  alteration  is 
void.^ 

V.  Crockett,  77  Me.  157  ;  the  writ  in  a  i  Sikes  v.  Truitt,  4  Jones  Eq.  361.     To 

suit  on  such  a  bond  may  be  amendeJ  by  the  same  effect,  Johnson   v.  Fuquay,  1 

inserting  the  name  of  a  person  as  prose-  Dana,  514;  Wiser  y.  Blachly,  1  John.  Ch. 

cutor  :    Waterman  v.  Dockray,   70   Me.  607;   Farley  v.  McConnell,  7  Lans.  428, 

149.     And  also  in  support  of  tlie  proposi-  430. 

tion,  that  a  bond  is  not  in  all  cases  void  ^  Cohea  i\  State,  34  Miss.  179. 

as  a  statutory  bond   merely  because  it  ^  Armistead  v.  Bozman,  1  Ired.  Eq. 

does  not  in  all  respects  conform  to  the  117  ;  Sikes  v,  Truitt,  supra. 
statute:    Van   Deusen   v.    Hay  ward,   17  *  Outlaw  r.  Farmer,  71  N.  C.  31. 

Wend.  67;  Morse  ?'.  Hodsdon,  5  Mass.  314;  ^  Farley  v.  McConnell,  supra;  Casoni 

Proprietors  of  Union  Wharf  v.  Mussey,  48  v.  Jerome,  58  N.  Y.  315. 
Me.  307  ;  Commissioners  v.  Way,  8  Ohio,  ^  Woods  ?'.  State,  10  Mo.  698,  citing 

103;    Postmaster   General   v.    Early,    12  Grant  v.  Brotherton,  7  Mo.  458,  as  an- 

Wlieat.  136  ;  Commonwealth  v.  Laub,  1  nouncing  the  doctrine  that  a  bond  given 

Watts  &  S.  261 ;  Baldwin  v.  Standish,  7  under  a  statute  is  valid,  although  not  in 

Cush.   207.      To   which   may   be  added  the  words  of  the  statute,  unless  the  stat- 

United  States  v.  Hodson,  10  Wall.   395,  ute  prescribe  a  form,  and  declare  bonds 

witli  the  authorities  there  cited.     See  also  not  in  accordance  therewitli  void. 
McChord  v.  Fisher,  13  B.  Monroe,  193,  in  7  Steele  v.  Tutwiler,  68  Ala.  107. 

which  it  is   held  that,  although   letters  ^  The    first    two    sureties    were   dis- 

granted  in  a  county  which  was  not  the  charged  by  the  alteration   of  the  bond 

intestate's    domicil   at   the   time   of    his  without  tiieir  consent;  the  last  two,  be- 

death,  and  in  which  he  had  no  personal  cause  their  signing  was  upon  the  under- 

property,  were  void,  yet  the  bond  given  standing  tiiat  they  were  bound  only  with 

by  an  administrator  so  appointed  was  a  tlie  first  two  :  Howe  v.  Peabody,  2  Gray, 

good  bond  at  common  law.  556. 


§  257  AMOUNT   OF   THE  PENALTY.  655 

§  257.    Amount  of  the  Penalty.  —  The  amount  in  which  security 
is  to  be  given  is  necessarily  left  to  the  discretion  of  the  probate 
court,  the  statutes  generally  fixing  a  minimum  only,  Amouut  of 
below  which  the  amount  must  not   be  ordered.     In  discretion  of 
Louisiana  the  amount  of  the  bond  is  fixed  by  the  law  above  tiie 
at  one  fourth  beyond  the  estimated  value  of  the  mov-  J^"!sc"Xd  by 
ables  and  immovables,  and  of  the  credits  comprised  statute. 
in  the  inventory  exclusive  of  bad  debts  ;  ^  and  in  Mississippi  in  a 
penalty  at  least  equal  in  value  to  such  estate  as  the  law  deter- 
mines shall  be  under  his  charge  ;  ^  in  the  other  States,  at  double 
the  value  of  the  personal   property  of  any  kind,^  including  the 
proceeds  of  sale  of  real  estate,  where  the  power  to  sell  is  given 
by  will,  which  may    come    into  the  hands    of   the  executor   or 
administrator  by  virtue  of  his  office.*     The  clerk  and  court  tak- 
ing the  bond  are  required  to  satisfy  themselves  of  the  Duties  of  the 
solvency  of  the  sureties  offered,  and  for  this  purpose  the  boud. 
may  examine  the  sureties  themselves,  the  principals,  or  any  other 
person,  under  oath  ;  and  the  bond  should  not  be  accepted  unless 
signed  by  a  sufficient  number  of  sureties  who  appear  to  be  per- 
fectly  solvent,  owning   property   in   excess  of   their  debts   and 
liabilities,  and  of  what  may  be  exempt  from  execution  under  the 
law ;  ^  and  the  aggregate  amount  of  the  property  so  owned  by  the 

^  Civ.  Code,  art.  1041 ;  Voorhies,  Kev.  may  compel  him  to  give  security,  &c.  in 

St.  §  1477  ;    Feray's   Succession,  31  La.  sucli  sums,  and  witli  sucli  sureties,  as  they 

An.  727.  may   think   reasonable.      Wlien   such  a 

2  Ellis  V.  Witty,  63  Miss.  117  ;  Code,  step  is  taken,  it  is  the  duty  of  the  court 

1880,  §  1995.  to  have  regard  to  the  will,  and  especially 

^  See  as  to  rule  in  California :  Kidd's  to  the  value  of  the  estate,  whether  real 

Estate,  Myr.  239.     New  York :  Sutton  v.  or  personal ;  and  when  the  will  contains 

Weeks,   6   Kedf.   353.      By   "  value  "   is  a  power  to  sell  real  estate  for  payment  of 

meant  the  value  as  estimated  by  the  court:  debts  or  for  other  purposes,  to  exact  bail 

Williams  v.  Verne,  68  Tex.  414,  418.  sufficiently   large   to   cover  tlie   amount 

*  In  the  construction  of  wills,  as  in  arising  from  the  sale  of  the  real  as  well  as 
equity,  land  directed  to  be  sold  and  con-  the  personal  property.  So  on  the  death 
verted  into  money,  is  treated  as  money  :  of  the  executor,  or  when,  being  miwilling 
Craig  V.  Leslie,  3  Wheat.  563,  577  ;  Alii-  or  unable  to  comply  with  the  order  of  the 
son  V.  Wilson,  13  Serg.  &  K.  330 ;  Gray  v.  court,  he  is  dismissed,  the  same  course 
Smith,  3  Watts,  289.  Rogers,  J.,  in  Com-  may  and  ouglit  to  be  pursued  as  regards 
monwealth  v.  Forne}',  says  :  "  As  an  the  administrator  cum  testamento  annexo." 
executor  is  appointed  on  a  special  trust  3  W.  &  S.  353,  355  et  seq.  So  where  the 
and  confidence  reposed  in  him  by  the  executor  has  power  to  charge  the  whole 
testator,  he  is  not  required,  in  the  first  estate,  the  bond  should  be  determined  by 
instance,  to  give  security  for  the  faithful  the  value  of  the  whole  estate,  real  and 
execution  of  the  trust.  But  as  the  con-  personal:  Ellis  v.  Witty,  63  Miss.  117. 
fidence  of  the  testator  maybe  abused,  on  ^  But  the  judge  cannot  arbitrarily  re- 
complaint  that  the  executor  is  likely  to  jcct  a  bond  as  to  the  sufficiency  of  which 
prove  insolvent,  &c.,  the  orphan's  court  no  reasonable  doubt  exists  :  Carpenter  v. 


556 


THE   ADMINISTRATION   BOND. 


§257 


several  sureties  should  equal  at  least  the  penalty  of  the  bond.i 
It  is  generally  required  that  the  sureties  be  inliabitants  of  the 
State ;  ^  and  certain  classes  of  persons  are  in  some  States  for- 
bidden from  being  received  as  sureties  on  administration  bonds.^ 
But  such  provisions  are  considered  directory  merely,  and  not 
designed  to  invalidate  the  bond  where  the  law  is  disregarded.* 
Under  the  English  Probate  Act,^  the  court  or  registrar  taking 
bond  is  authorized  to  take  more  bonds  than  one,  "  so  as  to  limit 
the  liability  of  any  surety  to  such  amount  as  the  court  or  district 
registrar  shall  think  reasonable."  This  seems  a  wise  and  highly 
beneficial  measure,  commending  itself  to  the  favorable  considera- 
tion of  the  legislative  authorities,  init  seems  not,  thus  far,  to  have 
received  any  attention  or  favor  in  America.^ 


Prcli.ite  Judge,  48  Mich.  318.  Sureties 
on  tlie  bond  wlio  are  legatees,  with  no 
property  except  as  derived  from  the  will, 
are  not  sufficient :  Ellis  i'.  Witty,  63  Miss. 
117,  120. 

1  But  the  acceptance  of  an  insolvent 
surety  will  not  aifect  tlie  validity  of  the 
appointment  or  the  acts  of  the  adminis- 
trator :  Herriman  v.  Janney,  31  La.  An. 
276,  280 ;  nor  the  fact  that  the  bond  is 
insufficient:  Mumford  v.  Hall,  25  Minn. 
347,  353. 

2  See  the  statutory  provisions  on  this 
subject  in  the  several  States.  But  the 
non-residence  of  the  sureties,  or  of  a 
sole  surety,  is  not  a  sufficient  cause  to 
vitiate  the  sale  of  lands  for  the  payment 
of  debts,  after  consummation  and  confirm- 
ance:  Johnson  v.  Clark,  18  Kans.  157, 167; 
and  in  Massachusetts,  where  a  bond  was 
signed  by  two  inhabitants  of  the  State 
and  one  who  was  described  as  an  inhab- 
itant of  another  State,  it  was  held  suffi- 
cient, if  approved  and  accepted  by  the 
probate  court,  to  qualify  the  administra- 
tor to  act :  Clarke  v.  Chapin,  7  Allen, 
425  et  seq.  Nor  is  their  non-residence  in 
the  county  where  application  is  made  a 
sufficient  reason  for  refusing  administra- 
tion :  Barksdale  r.  Cobb,  16  Ga.  13.  And 
in  South  Carolina  sureties  are  not  re- 
quired to  be  resident  in  the  State  :  Jones 
V.  Jones,  12  Rich.  L.  623.  Nor  in  Ken- 
tucky :  Rutherford  v.  Clark,  4  Bush,  27. 

3  So  in  Missouri  no  judge  of  probate, 
sheriff,  marshal,  clerk  of  court,  or  deputy 
of  either,  and  no  attorney  at  law,  shall  be 
taken  as  security  in  any  bond  required 


iu  the  probate  court :  Rev.  St.  1870,  §  21. 
The  reason  for  excluding  the  officers 
mentioned  is  patent  enough  ;  attorneys 
at  law,  however,  seem  to  be  discriminated 
against  rather  as  a  protection  to  tliem 
from  tiie  annoyance  of  their  clients  than 
from  motives  of  public  polic}'. 

*  Hicks  V.  Ciiouteau,  12  Mo.  341. 

5  20  &  21  Vict.  c.  77,  §  82. 

6  In  Baldwin  v.  Standish,  7  Cush.  207, 
and  People  v.  Lott,  27  111.  215,  the  appel- 
late courts  criticise  the  approval,  by  the 
probate  court,  of  several  smaller  bonds 
in  lieu  of  one  bond  of  the  required  amount, 
but  held  the  bonds  given  to  be  valid.  It 
is  not  clear  why,  if  they  were  valid  stat- 
utory bonds,  the  practice  of  taking  such 
should  be  discouraged.  It  may  be  un- 
wise, of  course,  to  permit  courts  of  special 
jurisdiction,  created  by  statute,  to  tran- 
scend tlie  limits  of  their  statutory  powers ; 
anil  in  tliis  view  the  substitution  of  several 
smaller  bonds  for  the  one  bond  required 
by  tlie  statute,  is  against  the  policy  of 
the  law.  But  probate  tribunals  are  more 
keenly  aware,  probably,  than  appellate 
courts,  of  the  hardships  connected  with 
the  giving  of  bonds  by  executors,  admin- 
istrators, and  guardians  ;  and  how  much 
more  rational  it  would  be  to  permit  the 
taking  of  bonds  in  which  the  surety  is 
allowed  to  limit  his  liability  to  an  amount 
which  he  might  feel  able  to  lose  without 
ruin  to  himself  and  his  family,  —  pro- 
vided sucli  bonds  aggregate  the  amount 
deemed  sufficient  to  protect  the  estate  un- 
der administration,  —  rather  than  to  insist 
on  single  bonds,  exceeding  in  amount,  in 


§  258 


JOINT   OR   SEPARATE   BONDS. 


557 


§  258.    Joint   or   Separate    Bonds.  —  When    tliGt'C    are   several 
executors   or  administrators,  they  may,  in  some  of  the   States, 


many  cases,  the  total  estate  of  eacli  single 
surety,  ami  thus  compel  them  to  assume 
the  risk  of  being  reduced  from  affluence 
to  poverty.  The  statute  alluded  to  in 
tiic  text  is  designed  to  afford  the  relief 
by  legislation  which  the  probate  judges 
in  the  cases  mentioned  above  undertook 
to  accomplish  without  legislative  sanc- 
tion, —  that  of  allowing  tlie  principal  to 
give  two,  three,  or  even  more  bonds,  in 
limited  amounts,  aggregating,  however, 
the  total  penalty  required,  who  might 
find  it  impossible  to  obtain,  or  against 
his  conscience  to  ask,  sureties  to  stand 
each  for  tlie  wliole  amount. 

Other  Englisli  statutes  have  been  en- 
acted, the  principle  of  wjiich  might  with 
profit  be  extended  to  the  American  law 
toucliing  administration  bonds.  Thus,  by 
tlie  act  of  G  &  7  Wm.  IV.  c.  28,  it  was 
provided  that  deposits  of  stock  or  ex- 
chequer bills  might  be  made  in  lieu  of 
giving  security  by  personal  bonds.  Why 
could  not  collateral  security  be  received 
in  America,  —  government,  State,  or  other 
safe  bonds,  notes  secured,  or  even  money, 
to  be  deposited  in  the  county  treasury 
and  held  as  long  as  necessary  to  protect 
the  estate  under  administration  ?  or  even 
the  administrator's  or  guardian's  recog- 
nizance, to  operate  as  a  lien  on  liis  real 
estate,  if  sufficient,  until  disciiarged  by 
order  of  the  court  ?  This  would  consti- 
tute unexceptional  security,  if  regulated 
by  proper  legislation,  and  would  secure 
the  services  of  the  most  efficient  and  trust- 
worthy persons,  who,  under  the  existing 
law,  refuse  to  serve  in  any  fiduciary  ca- 
pacity, because  they  deem  it  both  unwise 
and  unjust  to  their  friends  to  ask  them 
to  become  personally  liable  on  a  bond. 

The  statute  of  1  &  2  Vict.  c.  61,  pro- 
viding for  the  acceptance  of  the  guaranty 
of  the  Guaranty  Societ}',  in  lieu  of  bonds 
veith  personal  sureties,  from  any  person 
required  by  virtue  of  his  office  to  give 
bond,  was  followed  by  a  number  of  simi- 
lar enactments  in  England  and  Canada, 
and  within  a  few  years  past  Surety  In- 
surance Companies  have  been  incorpo- 
rated in  many  of  the  States,  enabling 
executors,  administrators,  curators,  guar- 
dians, &c.  to  assume  their  trusts  upon 


giving  the  bond  or  guaranty  of  a  com- 
pany  organized  and  ciiartered  to  this 
end.  The  rapid  increase  of  tlie  number 
of  tliese  corporations,  tlie  readiness  witii 
which  the  State  legislatures  give  them 
legal  existence,  (they  are  recognized  by 
law  in  California,  Connecticut,  Florida, 
Georgia,  Illinois,  Indiana,  Maine,  Massa- 
ciuisetts,  Michigan,  Missouri,  Nebraska, 
New  Jersey,  New  York,  Oregon,  Penn- 
sylvania, Rhode  Island,  Wisconsin,  and 
perhaps  other  States,)  and  tiie  favor  which 
they  enjoy  at  the  hands  of  the  public, 
are  sufficient  evidence  that  they  meet  a 
deeply  felt  want  and  offer  a  remedy  for 
a  grievous  evil.  Giving  bond  for  faitlif  ul 
and  proper  administration  of  estates  held 
in  trust  is  by  tiiem  reduced  to  a  business 
question,  and  no  longer  involves  the  haz- 
ard of  ruin  to  confiding  and  generous 
friends  and  their  families  ;  honest,  capa- 
ble business  men  are  enabled  to  assume 
the  management  of  trust  estates  without 
placing  themselves  imder  galling  obliga- 
tions to  bondsmen,  the  contemplation  of 
wliich  has  hitherto  deterred  the  very  best 
class  of  men  from  becoming  trustees. 

But  the  greatest  benefit  arising  out  of 
the  operation  of  Surety  Insurance  Com- 
panies lies  in  the  fact,  —  not  that  they 
offer  tiie  most  certain  indemnity  to  those 
whose  interests  have  suffered  in  conse- 
quence of  lack  of  integrity  or  skill  on  the 
part  of  trustees,  which  they  unquestion- 
ably do  (see  remarks  of  the  President  of 
the  High  Court  of  Justice  in  Carpenter  ?;. 
Solicitor,  L.  R.  7  P.  D.  23.5),  — but  that 
they  tend  very  greatly  to  prevent  the 
occurrence  of  defalcations  and  maladmin- 
istrations. It  is  their  interest,  and  they 
provide  themselves  with  the  means,  to 
keep  under  surveillance  and  control  the 
conduct  of  the  executor  or  guardian  for 
whom  they  stand  as  surety,  to  an  extent 
beyond  the  power  of  courts,  personal 
sureties,  or  parties  in  interest.  No  class 
of  persons  will  hail  with  profounder  grati- 
fication the  success  of  these  corporations, 
than  courts  of  testamentary  jurisdiction, 
as  furnishing  them  with  the  most  effi- 
cient assistance  in  protecting  the  interest 
of  those  over  whom  their  jurisdiction 
extends. 


558  THE   ADMINISTRATION   BOND.  §  258 

Joint  executors  citlier  give  One  joint  bond,  or  each  a  separate  bond.^ 
]"ornt,^oreach  a  Where  separate  bonds  are  given,  each  must  be  in  a 
separate  bond.  pQjjrj|f;j  ^g  high  as  that  required  for  a  joint  bond, 
eaciMmfst'^ije  because  each  executor  or  administrator  is  lawfully 
ainomit"of  the  entitled  to  take  into  possession  and  administer  any 
penalty.  qj.  g}!  Qf  ^j^g  asscts,  and  the  court  cannot   control 

Sah^pHucSs  them  in  this  right.2  But  if  a  joint  bond  be  given, 
are  liable  to  the  qyqyi  though  cxcmpt  in  the  will  from  giving  bond,  its 

obligees  for  all  or  e  o  7 

assets  coming     effect  is  to  make  them  both  liable  to  the  obligees,  as 

to  their  joint  . 

possession.  trustccs  for  Creditors  and  others  havnig  an  interest  in 
the  estate,  to  the  extent  of  the  assets  vs'hich  come  into  their  joint 
possession.^  At  common  law,  under  which  executors  were  not 
required  to  give  bond,  an  executor  was  not  liable  for  the  mal- 
feasance of  a  co-executor,  unless  it  could  be  shown  that  he  had 
concurred  therein,  or  that  there  had  been  joint  possession  of  the 
estate,  from  which  it  would  be  inferred  that  one  executor  had 
yielded  to  the  control  of  the  other,  who  squandered  it.*  The  same 
rule  is  adhered  to  in  America  as  to  co-administrators 

Not  as  T      •    • 

executors,  and  co-cxccutors ;  the  executor  or  administrator,  as 
such,  is  not  liable  for  waste  committed  by  his  co-executor,  nor  for 
assets  which  the  latter  received  and  misapplied,  without  his  own 
knowledge  or  fault.^  But  it  is  held  in  most  States  that  the  effect 
but  as  sureties  of  giving  a  joiiit  boud  is  to  make  the  principals  liable 
for  each  other.  ^^^  g^p|-j  other  as  suretics,  so  long  as  the  joint  admin- 
istration continues;^  while  in  some  of  them  this  doctrine  is 
denied,  and  it  is  asserted  that  they  are  jointly  liable  for  joint 
acts,  and  each  separately  liable  for  separate  acts,  because  they 
signed  as  principals,  and  not  as   sureties.^     The  principals  are 

1  As  controlled  by  statutory  provisions  ^  Brazier  v.  Clark,  5  Pick.  96;  New- 

on  this  subject  in  the  several  States.  comb  v.  Williams,  9  Mete.  (Mass.)  525; 

^  See  post,  %Sii!)  et  srq.  Towne    v.    Ammidown,    20    Pick.    535  i 

3  Ames  v'.  Armstrong,  106  Mass.  15 ;  Boyd  r.  Boyd,  1  Watts,  365 ;  Clarke  v. 

Braxton  v.  State,  25  Ind.  82 ;  Prichard  v.  State.  6  Gill  &  J.  288  ;  Caskie  v.  Harri- 

State,   34   Ind.  137 ;  Moore  v.  State,  49  son,  76  Va.  85,  93 ;  Green  v.  Hamberry, 

Ind.   558 ;    in   this   case,  Buskirk,  C.  J.,  2  Brock.  403,  420  ;  Morrow  v.  Peyton,  8 

dissenting,   says,   "In    my   opinion,   the  Leigh,  54  ;  Hooper  ».  Hooper,  29  W,  Va. 

cases  of  Braxton  v.  State,  and  Prichard  276,  299;   Eckert  v.  Myers,  15  N.  East. 

V.  State,  should  be  squarely  overruled  "  :  (Oliio),  862. 

p  5(32.  "  But  the  sureties  are,  of  course,  lia- 

*  Wms.  Ex.  [1820]  et  seq. ;  post,  §  348.  ble  for  the  joint  acts  of  both,  and  the 

5  State  V.  Wyant,  67  Ind.  25,  33,  cit-  separate  acts  of    each  :    Sandford,  Ch., 

ing  Call  V.  Ewing,  1  Blackf.  301,   Ray  v.  in  Kirby  >.\  Turner,  reported  in  Hopkins 

Doughty,   4  Blackf.    115,   and    Davis  v.  Ch.  309;  and  see  State  i'.  Wyant,  supra, 

Walford,  2  Ind.  88  quoting  the  dissenting  opinion  of  Buskirk, 


§  259  APPROVAL   AND  CUSTODY  OF   BONDS.  559 

bound,  however,  to  protect  the  joint  sureties  from  the  conse- 
quences of  each  other's  acts ;  ^  but  the  sureties  in  a  joint  admin- 
istration bond  are  not  liable  to  one  of  the  joint  administrators 
for  the  default  of  the  other.^  An  anonymous  case  is  mentioned 
in  a  Pennsylvania  report,  where  an  insolvent  administrator  was 
allowed  to  recover  against  his  own  sureties  for  the  benefit  of  the 
creditors  of  the  estate  ;  but  the  bond  was  not  an  administration 
bond,  and  the  case  does  not  affect  the  principle  under  con- 
sideration.^ 

§  259.  Approval  and  Custody  of  Bonds.  —  The  administration 
bond  must  be  approved  and  attested  or  certified  by  the  court, 
judge,  or  clerk  taking  the  same  ;  if  taken  by  the  judge  ^^^^.^^  ^^  ^^^^^^ 
or  clerk  in  vacation,  it   should  be  reported   to  and  in  approving 

.      bonds. 

approved  by  the  court  at  its  next  regular  term  ;  it 
should  be  recorded  in  a  book  kept  for  that  purpose,  and  the  origi- 
nal filed  with  the  papers  pertaining  to  the  estate,  and  a  careful 
compliance  with  the  requirements  of  the  statute  with  reference  to 
the  taking  of  bonds  is  the  duty  of  judges  and  clerks.  But,  while 
the  courts  of  some  States  require  a  strict  and  techni-  jr„re  strict  in 
cal  adlierenceto  the  directions  of  the  statute,  and  hold  some  states 

'  _         tlian  in  others. 

bonds  insufficient  which  are  not  taken  in  conformity 
therewith,*  these  formalities  are  generally  deemed  to  be  direc- 
tory only,  and  a  variance  from  thein  in  matters  not  essential  to 
the  nature  of  the  contract  of  the  sureties  will  not  affect  the  valid- 
ity of  the  bond.^  An  administrator's  bond  is  an  official  document, 
and  cannot  be  removed  from  the  office ;  if  needed  as  evidence,  a 

C.  J.,  in  Moore  v.  The  State,  49  Ind.  558,  3  Gibson,  C.  J.,  in  Wolfinger  v.  Fors- 

"  He  executed  tlie  bond  as  a  principal,  man,  6  Pa.  St.  294. 

and  not  as  a  surety,  and  he  cannot  be  *  Mathews  v.  Patterson,  42  Me.  257, 

held  liable  as  a  surety,"  and  overruling  holding  that  each  jirobate  bond  must  be 

the   cases   of    Braxton   v.    State,    supra,  specifically  acted  on  by  tlie  probate  judge, 

Pritchard  v.  State,  supra,  and  Moore  ;•.  as  required  by  tlie  statute;  see an/c,  §  25(3. 

State,  supra,  to  the  extent  of  announcing  ^  Thus  it  is  held  in  Missouri,  that  an 

that  under  the  statute  of  Indiana  there  administrator's  bond  is  valid,  tliough  not 

can  be  no  joint  administration  bond,  and  approved  by  the  court  :  James  v.  Dixon, 

where   such   a   one   is   given   it  will  be  21  Mo.  538;   Henry  v.  State,  9  Mo.  778; 

treated  as  the  separate  bond  of  each  one  State  v.   Farmer,  54  Mo.  439  :  Brown  v. 

of  the  principals.  "Weatherby,  71  Mo.  152.     So  in  Wiscon- 

1  Little  V.  Knox,  15  Ala.  57G  ;  Dobyns  sin  :  Cameron  v.  Cameron,  15  Wis.  1.  In 
V.  McGovern,  15  Mo.  662  ;  Stephens  v.  Georgia :  Ford  v.  Adams,  43  Ga.  340.  In 
Taylor,  62  Ala.  269 ;  Eckert  v.  Myers,  15  Indiana  :  State  v.  Chrisman,  2  Ind.  126. 
N.  East.  (Ohio),  862.  In  Alabama  it  was  held  tliat  it  is  suffi- 

2  Nanz  V.  Oakley,  37  Hun,  495 ;  Hoell  cient  to  raise  a  violent,  if  not  a  conclusive, 
V.  Blanchard,  4Desaus.  21.  But  see  State  presumption  that  the  bond  was  received 
V,  Wyant,  supra.  by  the  court  as  the  security  required  by 


560  THE    ADMINISTRATION   BOND.  §  260 

certified  copy  is  sufficient.^  If  it  as  well  as  the  record  thereof  is 
lost  or  destroyed,  it  may  be  substituted  as  the  record  of  a  probate 
court.2 

§  260.  Special  Bonds.  —  In  somc  of  the  States  special  bonds 
are  required  to  be  given  whenever  it  becomes  necessary  to  sell 
Bond  to  sell  real  estate  for  the  payment  of  debts  or  legacies,  upon 
real  estate.  ^^iq  theory  that  the  ordinary  administration  bond  cov- 
ers only  the  personal  estate  coming  into  the  hands  of  the  executor 
or  administrator.  This  subject  is  fully  considered  in  connection 
with  the  sale  of  real  estate  by  order  of  the  probate  court,  to  which, 
in  order  to  avoid  repetition,  reference  is  hereby  made.^  It  appears 
from  tlie  authorities  there  cited,  that  in  such  case  the  sureties  on 
the  regular  administration  bond  are  not  liable  for  the  misapplica- 
tion or  loss  of  the  funds  arising  from  the  sale  of  lands.* 

Where  a  will  makes  the  same  person  executor  and  trustee,  the 
Executor's  cxccutor's  bond  cannot  be  construed  as  conditioned 
ext'enciTothe'  for  the  performance  of  the  duties  belonging  to  the 
acts  of  the  same  trustcc  ;  a  Separate  bond  should  in  such  case  be  given 

person  as  ^ 

trustee.  aS  truStCC.^ 

It  appears  from  a  former  chapter  ^  that  residuary  legatees  may 
in  some  States  dispense  with  the  necessity  of  official  administra- 
Bond  of  resid-  tiou  by  giving  bond  to  pay  any  debts  that  may  be  due 
uary  legatee.  ^^001  the  tcstator,  and  legacies.  Such  bonds,  when 
given  by  an  executor  who  is  also  the  sole  or  residuary  legatee, 
operate  as  a  conclusive  admission  of  assets,  because  it  is  condi- 
tioned that  the  debts  shall  be  paid,  and  are  strongly  discouraged 
in  a  New  Hampshire  case." 

the  statute,  when  it  is  found  upon  the  of  substitution  is  not  conclusive  as  to  the 

files  without  any  evidence  accompanying  execution  of  the  bond, 

it  tliat  it  has  been  rejected,  and  that  the  ^  Pust,  §  472. 

principal  has  proceeded  to  execute  the  *  See  also   Robinson   v.  Millard,  133 

duties  of  his  office  :  McClure  r.  Coklough,  Mass.  2-36,  denying  the  liability,  although 

5  Ala.  05,  72,  resting  upon  the  authority  the  administrator  charged  himself  in   his 

of  Bank  of  United  States  v.  Dandridge,  administration  account;  Probate  Court  u. 

12  Wheat.  64,  and  Apthorp  v.  North,  14  Hazard,  13  R.  I.  3,  where  the  sale  was 

Mass.  167.  under  a  power  in  the  will,    and  nuraer- 

1  Miller  v.  Gee,  4  Ala.  359.  ous   authorities   on   the   subject  are   re- 

2  Tanner  v.  Mills,  50  Ala.  356.    A  min-  viewed. 

ute  entry  of  the  court,  reciting  the  ap-  ^  Hinds  v.  Hinds,  85  Ind.  312,  315. 

pointment  of  tlie  administrator,  the  ap-  ^  Ante,  §  202. 

proval  of  the  bond,  its  amount,  and  the  ^  Schoul.  Ex.  §  138;  Morgan  r.  Dodge, 

names  of  the  sureties,  is  competent  evi-  44  N.   H.   255.      See    authorities   under 

dence,  and,  if  not  rebutted,  sufficient  to  §  202. 

authorize  the  substitution.     But  a  decree 


I  261  PETITION   FOR   THE   GRANT.  561 


CHxVPTER  XXVIII. 

OP    THE    PROCEDURE    IN     OBTAINING    LETTERS    AND    QUALIFYING    FOR 

THE   OFFICE. 

§  261,    The  Petition  for  the   Grant  of  Letters   Testamentary  or   of 
Administration.  —  There  was  occasion  in  a  former  chapter  ^  to 
point  out  the  diversity  of  decisions  upon  the  question  Rule  requiring 
of  the  validity  or  conclusiveness  of  the  judgments  and  faefstobc"'' 
decrees  of  probate  courts,  and  to  show  that  in  some  of  ^|IJ,''™fi;y''J^e 
the  States  these  are  assailable  in  collateral  proceed-  record, 
ings,  and  will  be  held  void  unless  the  record  recites  all  the  facts 
upon  which  the  jurisdictional  power  of  the  court  to  render  them 
depends.     In  these  States  the  rule  is  stated  to  be,  that  the  record 
must  show  the  facts  giving  jurisdiction,  or  the  judgment  rendered 


will  be  held  void.^     In  the  majority  of  States,  how-  Relaxed  in 

,..,...  .,■■    most  States, and 

ever,  the  rule  is  less  strmgent,  and  jurisdiction  will  jurisdiction 
be  either  presumed  or  inferred  from  such  facts  as  ^' coiTatera"^ 
may  be  stated,  or  from  the  judgment  or  decree  itself.^  n^^^jj^-'f^g. 
So,  for  instance,  the  statement  in  the  petition  refer-  ment  rendered 
rinse  to  the  decedent  as  "late  of"  a  countv  named,  is  held  a  suffi- 
cient  averment  of  the  decedent's  domicil  in  such  county  at  the 

1  On  the  Nature  of  Probate  Courts  in  under  a  sale  by  virtue  of  a  surrofjate's 
America,  ch.  xv.,  and  especially  §§  145,  order,  it  must  be  affirmatively  sliown  that 
146.  an  account  of  the  personal  estate  and  of 

2  Vick  V.  Vicksburg,  1  How.  (Miss.)  the  debts  was  presented  to  the  surrogate  : 
879,439.  It  was  held  in  tliis  case  that  the  Fnrd  r.  Walswortli,  15  Wend.  449;  in 
appointment  of  an  administrator  de  bonis  Kentucky,  that  an  order  of  tlie  county 
non  with  the  will  annexed  was  void,  be-  court  setting  aside  an  executor  and  ap- 
cause  it  did  not  aver  the  death  or  removal  pointing  an  administrator  sliould  show 
of  the  executor.  So  it  is  held  in  Illinois,  the  reason  for  so  doing  :  Bronaugh  v. 
that,  before  an  estate  can  be  committed  to  Bronaugh,  7  J.  J.  Marsh.  G21  ;  in  Mich- 
the  public  administrator,  it  must  affirm-  igan,  that  the  appointment  of  an  admin- 
atively  appear  that  there  is  no  relative  istrator  is  void,  unless  the  record  shows 
or  creditor  in  the  State,  and  that  the  appli-  all  jurisdictional  facts,  i.  a.  the  interest  of 
cation  was  made  by  a  party  in  interest,  the  applicant :  Shipman  v.  Butterfield, 
otherwise  the  proceedings  will  be  non  47  Mich.  487:  Besan^on  r.  Brownson,  39 
coram  judice,  and  void:    Unknown  Heirs  Mich.  388,  392. 

V.Baker,  23  111.  484.     In  New  York,  to  3  See  ante,  §§   143,  145;  Johnston  v. 

give  validity  to  a  deed  of  land  executed     Smith,  25  Hun,  171,  176. 
VOL.  I.  —  36 


562  PROCEDFRE   IN   OBTAINING   LETTERS.  §  261 

time  of  his  death.^  Although  the  petition  must  be  verified,  and 
the  averment  of  the  applicant "  to  the  best  of  liis  knowledge  and 
belief"  is  insufFicient,^  yet  objection  on  this  score  cannot  be  made 
in  a  collateral  proceeding,  and  does  not  avoid  the  surrogate's 
jurisdiction.^  So  it  has  been  held,  that,  while  an  order  appointing 
an  administrator  with  the  will  annexed  is  defective  in  not  show- 
ing that  the  executor  named  in  the  will  refused  to  qualify,  it  is 
still  valid  if  in  fact  he  did  so  refuse ;  and  this  may  be  shown  to 
support  the  order  when  collaterally  questioned ;  *  and  that  prima 
facie  evidence  that  unadministered  assets  remain  is  sufficient  to 
support  the  appointment  of  an  administrator  de  bonis  non  with 
the  will  annexed.^ 

But  while  it  may  not  in  all  cases  be  absolutely  necessary  to 
support  the  jurisdictional  power  of  the  court  by  a  recital  of  all 
Wh  sh  uid  ^^^^  facts,  yet  it  is  of  the  highest  importance  that  a 
be  shown  by      rccord  should  bc  made  of  all  facts  and  circumstances 

the  record. 

which  call  forth  the  judicial  powers  of  the  court.    The 

petition  of   the  applicant  for  letters  affords  the  most  convenient 

means  for  proper  allegations,  so  that  the  finding  upon 

Contents  of  .  ^  .  ^  ^,.     ,.        .  p      „     , 

the  petition  it  may  Constitute  an  adjudication  ot  all  the  necessary 
facts.  The  averments  should  include,  among  other 
things,  first,  the  death  of  the  person  whose  estate  is  to  be  admin- 
istered, his  place  of  domicil  at  the  time  of  his  death,  and  whether 
he  died  testate  or  intestate ;  next,  if  he  left  a  will,  that  it  has  been 
admitted  to  probate,  and  the  name  or  names  of  the  persons  nom- 
inated executors  ;  third,  if  the  application  be  for  letters  of  ad- 
ministration with  the  will  annexed,  that  no  executor  has  been 
named,  or  that  all  so  named  have  renounced,  died,  or  are  incom- 
petent to  serve,  and  the  circumstances  conferring  upon  the  appli- 
cant the  right  to  administer  the  estate  ;  fourth,  the  names  of  the 
widow,  husband,  next  of  kin,  or  heirs,  as  the  case  may  be;  fifth, 
the  nature  of  the  goods,  effects,  or  other  estate  left  by  the  deceased, 
and  its  estimated  value ;  sixth,  if  the  application  be  for  letters  of 
administration  generally,  the  relation  or  kinship  between  the  de- 
ceased and  the  applicant ;  seventh,  if  the  application  be  for  letters 

1  Abel  V.  Love,  17  Cal.  233 ;  Town-  2  Sheldon  v.  Wright,  7  Barb.  39  ;  Rod- 

send  I'.  Gordon,  19  Cal.  188.    Tliese  cases  erigas  v.  East  River  Inst.,  76  N.  Y.  316. 
were  decided  under  a  statute  construed  ^  Sheldon  ?•.  Wright,  supra  ;  Pleasants 

as   requiring    jurisdictional    facts   to   be  v.  Dunkin,  47  Tex.  343. 
shown   of    record  to  validate  the  judg-  *  Peebles  r.  Watts,  9  Dana.  102. 

ment.  ^  Pumpelly  v.  Tinkhara,  23  Barb  321 


§  2G2        NOTICE   TO   PARTIES   ENTITLED   TO   ADMINISTER.  563 

de  bonis  non,  the  death,  removal,  or  resignation  of  the  former 
executor  or  administrator,  or,  if  there  were  several,  of  all  of  them; 
eighth,  if  the  decedent  was  at  the  time  of  his  death  a  non-resident 
of  the  county,  the  existence  of  property  within  the  county,  or 
other  circumstance  showing  the  necessity  of  administration  ;  and, 
generall)/,  wliatever  facts  may  exist  which,  under  the  law  of  the 
State  and  the  particular  circumstances,  may  have  a  bearing  upon 
the  jurisdiction  of  the  court  to  grant  letters,  the  right  of  the  ap- 
plicant to  be  appointed,  and  the  amount  of  the  bond  to  be  required, 
or  whether  any  bond  be  necessary.^ 

§  262.   Notice  to  Parties  entitled  to  Administer.  —  It  has  already 
been  shown  ^  that  letters  granted  to  a  stranger,  or  to  one  whose 
claim  to  the  administration  is  inferior  to  that  of  an-  No  letters 
other,  will  be  revoked  upon  the  application  of  one  granted  with- 
having  a  superior  right,  unless   such   applicant  had  °ii  hTving  an 
been  notified  or  cited  before  the  grant  was  made.    The  riorri°ht*^to^' 
grant  to  one  of  several  parties  having  equal  claims  ^^*^  applicant. 
Avill  not,  as  a  general  thing,  be  revoked  for  the  want  of  notice, 
on  the  application  of  another,  unless  there  be  a  statutory  require- 
ment to  give  notice  or  issue  citation  to  all  entitled ;  but  it  is  evi- 
dently wise  and  just  that  notice  should  be  given  to  all  who  are  in 
the  same  degree  of  preferment,  so  that  the  most  suitable  person 
may  be  selected,  and  possible  disqualifications  or  objections  pointed 
out  before  the  appointment  is  made.^     The  petition  of  the  appli- 
cant must,  as  already  stated,*  show,  among  the  other  facts  neces- 
sary to  give  the  court  jurisdiction,  his  interest  in  the  estate  to  be 
administered  ;  °  on  the  same  principle,  one  showing  no  interest 
cannot  intervene  or  object  to  an  appointment.^     And  where  the 
statute  provides  for  citation,  it  must  be  served  upon  all  of  those 

1  The   importance   of  embodying   in  District  and  the  Circuit  Court,  that  the 

the  petition  all  the  jurisdictional  facts  ap-  grant  of  letters  in  response  to  tlie  petition 

pears  from  the  language  of  Judge  Sawyer  constituted  an  adjudication  of  tiie  ques- 

in  a  case  decided  in  the  Ninth  Judicial  tion  of  residence  unassailable  collaterally, 

District   of    the   United    States,    arising  no  matter  how  clear  the  fraud  or  error  of 

upon  the  validity  of  letters  granted  by  a  the  allegation  be  :  Holmes  v.  Oregon  R. 

county  court  in  Oregon.     The  statute  of  R.  Co.,  7  Sawy.  380. 

that  State  provides  that  the  applicant  for  2  Ajile,  §  243. 

letters  of  administration  shall  set  forth  in  ^  Schoui.  Ex.  §  112. 

his    petition   the  facts  necessary  to  give  ••  A'ltc,  §  2G1,  p.  .561,  note  2. 

the  court  jurisdiction  ;  the  petition  under  5  Shipman  r.  Rntterfield,47  Mich.  487; 

consideration  set  forth,  /.  a.,  that  the  in-  Bcsan^on  v.  Brownson,  30  Mich.  388,  <392. 

testate  was  at  the  time  of  his  death  an  ^  Succession  of   Berfuse,  34  La.  An. 

inhabitant  of  the  county  in  which  letters  599;  Drexel  v.  Berney,  1  Dem.  163. 
were  granted,  and  it  is  held,  both  bv  the 


564 


PROCEDURE  IN  OBTAINING  LETTERS. 


§  262 


having  a  prior  right,  who  have  not  renounced,  and  must  conform 
to  the  requirements  of  the  statute.^  Failure  to  cite  the  widow,  or 
the  next  of  kin,  is  an  irregularity,  for  which  the  letters  may  he 
revoked,  but  does  not  generally  render  them  absolutely  void;^  yet 
it  has  been  held  to  avoid  the  administration  in  Louisiana^  and 
Georgia.*  But  one  having  such  notice  as  would  be  conveyed  by 
the  statutory  mode  of  service,  cannot  complain  that  the  statute 
was  not  observed.^ 

All  parties  to  whom  citation  or  notice  is  given,  or  who  have  a 
Such  parties  beneficial  interest  in  the  estate  to  be  administered, 
may  appear  and  oppose  the  appointment  of  a  particu- 
lar applicant ;  and  the  interest  giving  such  a  person 
a  standing  in  court  may  be  shown  at  the  hearing, 
without  having  been  previously  adjudicated.^ 
Time  within  .  The  statutc,  in  some  of  the  States,  prescribes  a 
ktratLn'wiu'  limitation  to  the  right  of  granting  administration  in 
be  granted.        ^  givcu  number  of  years  after  the  decedent's  death.'^ 

Provision  is  made  in  Massachusetts,  that,  upon  due  notice  to 
„  ,.    ,  ,         legatees  and  creditors,  letters  testamentary  may  be 

Notice  to  lega-        "  '  j  j 

tees  of  appiica-   granted  to  an  executor  without  sureties  on  his  bond  ; 

tion  for  letters 
testamentary 
witliout  bond. 


have  the  right 
to  appear  and 
be  heard  upon 
the  application 
for  letters. 


and  it  is  held  that  publication  in  the  newspaper  of 
the  executor's  request  is  sufficient  notice,  although  a 
minor  is  interested  who  has  no  guardian.^ 


1  Hence,  if  the  statute  require  the  ap- 
plicant to  pray  for  the  appuintment  of 
the  petitioner,  a  citation  conforming  to  an 
application  praying  for  tlie  appointment 
of  tlie  public  administrator  (not  petition- 
ing) is  insufficient :  Batchelor  v.  Batch- 
elor,  1  Dem.  209,  211 ;  s.  c.  in  64  How. 
Pr.  350. 

^  Kelly  V.  West,  80  N.  Y.  139,  145; 
Sheldon  v.  Wright,  7  Barb.  39  ;  James  v. 
Adams,  22  How.  Pr.  409. 

^  King  V.  Lastrapes,  13  La.  An.  582. 

*  Torrance  v.  McDougald,  12  Ga. 
526. 

5  Davis  V.  Smith,  58  N.  H.  16. 

6  Thus,  a  natural  child  pretending  to 
have  been  legally  acknowledged  by  her 
deceased  parent  can  oppose  the  applica- 
tion of  collateral  heirs  for  the  administra- 
tion of  the  succession  ;  and  the  proof  of 
parentage  and  acknowledgment  may  be 
made  on  trial  of  the  opposition  in  tlie 
application  for  administration:  Succession 


of  HcTiert,  33  La.  An.  1099.  And  see 
post,  §  263. 

''  In  Connecticut  administration  can- 
not be  granted  after  seven  years  from  the 
death  of  the  intestate  ;  but  a  will  may 
be  proved  at  any  time  within  ten  years 
after  the  testator's  death  :  Lawrence's 
Appeal,  49  Conn.  411,  422.  In  Massa- 
chusetts, where  administration  may  be 
granted  more  than  twenty  j'cars  after 
the  decedent's  death  upon  projierty  which 
thereafter  first  comes  to  the  knowledge 
of  a  person  interested  therein,  if  applied 
for  within  five  years  after  it  becomes 
known,  knowledge  is  not  necessarily  to 
be  imputed  from  the  fact  that  such  per- 
son was  the  brother  of  the  intestate  and 
knew  of  his  death  :  Parsons  v.  Spaul- 
ding,  130  Mass.  83.  In  Illinois  the  limit 
is  seven  years,  unless  circumstances  pre- 
vented an  earlier  application  for  letters  : 
Fitzgerald  r.  Glancy,  49  111.  465,  469. 

8  Wells  V.  Child,  12  Allen,  830. 


§  264  NATURE  OF  THE  DECREE.  565 

§  263.  Nature  of  the  Proceeding.  —  The  grant  of  letters  is  said 
to  be  a  proceeding  in  rem  in  the  strictest  sense,^  and  in  a  contest 
for  the  right  of  administration  there  are  strictly  no  proceeding 
parties  plaintiff  or  defendant.     The  applicants  are  all  said  to  be 

IT  I  'in  rem. 

actors,  some  of  whom  may  withdraw  and  others  come 
in  at  any  time  during    the   progress    of    the   cause,  even  after 
appeal.2     Objections  to  the  grant  of   letters  will  be  Any  person 
heard  from  any  person  claiming  under  oath  to  be  in-  j"  ini'iestmay 

•'    i  °  _  be  a  party. 

tercsted.  If  his  right  to  appear  is  disputed,  the  ques- 
tion will  be  decided  upon  proof,-^  and  if  it  be  found  that  he  is  a 
mere  stranger,  and  not  interested  as  creditor,  heir,  or  legatee,  he 
cannot  be  heard,  even  to  object  that  there  arc  other  persons  having 
priority  over  the  applicant  under  the  law.*  The  grant  must  be 
during  the  term  succeeding  the  publication  of  notice  and  citation 
by  the  clerk,  where  such  notice  and  citation  are  required  ;  but 
the  application  may  be  continued  from  term  to  term  by  order 
of  the  court,  without  new  notice ;  parties  in  interest  are  bound 
to  take  notice  of  such  continuances.^  This  subject  is  more  fully 
considered  in  the  chapter  on  the  Nature  of  American  Probate 
Courts.^ 

§  264.    Nature  of  the    Decree,   and  its   Authentication.  —  Letters 
testamentary  or  of  administration  can  be  granted   only  by  the 
decree  or  order  of  the  probate  court  in  term  time  ;  "^  Letters  must 
but  provision  is  made  in  most  of  the  States,  that  dur-  proWte  court, 
ing  vacation  letters  may  be  issued  by  the  judge  or  orcjeri^ln^ 
clerk  of  the  court,  which  will  be  ratified  by  the  court  vacation. 
at  the  next  regular  term  thereof  unless  valid  objection  be  made 
against  the  appointee.^     Appointment  by  the  clerk  without  action 
of  the  court  is  held  to  be  a  ministerial,  not  a  judicial  act,  and  there- 
fore its  validity  may  be  inquired  into  collaterally.^     Letters  pur- 
porting to  be  granted  by  the  proper  authority,  in  due  form,  and 

1  Quidort  v.  Pergeaux,  18  N.  J.  Eq.  472,  »  Brown   v.   King,   2  Ind.  520.     And 

477.  wliere  in  sucli  case  a  person  notifies  the 

■^  Atkins  0.  McCormick,  4  Jones  L.  274.  clerk  that  lie  is  a  creditor  and  intends  to 

3  Burwell  v.  Shaw,  2  Bradf.  322;  Fer-  apply  for  letters  as  soon  as  the  law  per- 

ris's  Will,  Tuck.  15.     See  ante,  p.  5G4,  n.  0.  mits,  this   was  held  not  such  a  contro- 

^  Burton  v.  Burton,  4  Harr.  73.  verting  of  the  riglit  to  administer  as  was 

^  McGehee  v.  Ragan,  9  Ga.  135.  contemplated  hy  the  statute  to  deny  the 

6  Ante,  §  148.  authority  of  the  clerk  to  appoint. 
■^  Lawson    v.  Mosely,  6  La.  An.  700.  ^  Illinois  Central  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Cragin, 

As  to  public  administrators  acting  without  71  111.  177,  180. 

appointment,  see  ante,  §  180. 


566  PROCEDURE   IN   OBTAINING   LETTERS.  §  264 

sealed  with  the  office  seal  of  the  court,  are  good  without  the  signa- 
ture of  the  clerk  until  set  aside  for  informality.^  But  in  Louisi- 
ana, where  the  probate  judges  may  appoint  administrators  of 
estates  of  less  value  than  ioOO  without  the  notice  or  bond  required 
in  other  cases,  when  no  one  would  give  the  bond,  and  clerks  are 
authorized  to  administer  small  successions,  it  is  held  that  neither 
of  these  provisions  authorizes  the  clerk  to  appoint  administrators.^ 
And  letters  cannot  be  issued  by  a  deputy  clerk  in  his  own  name.^ 
The  memorandum  of  the  clerk  immediately  following  the  entry 
of  the  will  of  record  of  the  qualifying  of  the  executor,  is  sufficient 
Failure  of  the  fccord  evidence  of  the  grant  of  letters  testamentary 
thTorderot"'*^  and  qualification  of  the  executor ;  and  the  failure  of 
appoininient      the  clcrk  to  rccord  letters  testamentary  as  required  by 

does  not  vitiate  .  .  .     "^  i 

letters.  the  law  docs  not  vitiate  his  authority.*     But  the  au- 

thority of  the  clerk  to  appoint  administrators  does  not  relieve 
them  of  the  necessity  of  rendering  an  order  in  making  the  ap- 
pointment ;  and  until  such  order  is  rendered,  the  appointment  is 
invalid,  and  a  party  with  a  better  right  to  such  appointment  is  in 
time  to  present  his  application.^ 

Tlie  delivery  of  letters  is  not  necessary.^  The  order  by  the 
Appointment  proper  court,  that  "  R.  be  and  hereby  is  appointed  ad- 
Teuel-s  aK^not  Hiiuistrator  on  giving  proper  bond,"  fixing  the  amount 
delivered.  of  the  boud  and  the  surety,  is  an  absolute,  and  not  a 

conditional  grant,  if  the  bond  be  filed  on  the  same  day.'^  Posses- 
Evidence  of  sion  of  letters  by  the  person  to  whom  they  purport  to 
authority.  havc  been  granted,  is  prima  facie  proof  of  delivery  ;^ 
and  the  proper  proof  of  appointment  is  the  letters  of  administra- 
tion, or  a  certified  copy  thereof,  or  of  the  order  of  appointment.^ 
The  words  "  given  under  my  hand  and  seal  of  oflice,"  with  date 
and  signature  of  the  ordinary,  constitute  a  sufficient  authentica- 
tion of  letters  of  administration ;  ^^  and  a  clerk's  certificate,  with 
his  signature  and  official  seal,  is  complete  evidence  of  the  appoint* 
ment ;  ^^  but  letters  not  authenticated  by  the  seal  of  the  court 

1  Post  V.  Caulk,  3  Mo.  35.  6  state   v.   Price,   21   Mo.  434 ;   Bow- 

2  Wilson  I'.  Imboden,  8  La.  An.  140.     man's  Appeal,  62  Pa.  St.  166. 

But  see  Succession  of  Picard,  infra,  reier-  1  Tucker  v.  Harris,  13  Ga.  1;  Hoskins 

ring  to  the  act  of  1880,  authorizing  clerks  v.  Miller,  2  Dev.  L.  360. 

to  issue  letters.  8  McNair  v.  Dodge,  7  Mo.  404;  Hensley 

8  Stewart  v.  Cave,  1  Mo.  752.  v.  Dodge,  7  Mo.  479. 

«  Wright  V.  Mongle,  10  Lea,  .38.  ^  Davis  v.  Shuler,  14  Fla.  4.38. 

&  Succession   of    Picard,   33   La.   An.         1°  Witzel  v.  Pierce,  22  Ga.  112. 
1135.  "  Davie  v.  Stevens,  10  La.  An.  496. 


§  265  OATH   OF   OFFICE.  567 

granting  them  arc  inoperative,  and  not  admissible  in  evidence.^ 
A  slieriff  is  not  by  virtue  of  his  office  the  administrator  of  any  de- 
ceased person ;  he  must  first  be  empowered  to  act  by  the  probate 
court.2  A  widow  testifying  that  "  she  was  acting  in  the  capacity 
of  surviving  wife  of  her  deceased  luisband,"  does  not  thereby  prove 
that  she  had  properly  (pialified  to  enable  her  to  control  the  com- 
munity estate.^ 

§  265.    Oath  of  Office.  —  The  oath  of  office  which  executors  and 
administrators  are  required  to  take  before  entering  upon  the  dis- 
charge of  their  duties  is  the  decisive  ceremony  cloth-  Authority  is 
ing  them  with  the  title  to  the  personal  property  of  the  takifig  ofTaS' 
deceased  testator  or  intestate,  and  all  the  authority  of  office. 
and  responsibility  connected  with  their  office.     The  refusal  of  an 
executor  to  take  this  oath  is,  even  in  England,  tantamount  to  a 
refusal  of   the  executorship,  and  must   be  so  recorded.     So  the 
refusal  to   give   bond   and    take   the   oath   required   by  the   law 
amounts  to  the  refusal  of  the  office  of  administrator.^     The  form 
of  the  oath  is  usually  prescribed  by  statute  and  may  who  may  ad- 
be  administered  by  the  judge  or  clerk  of  the  probate  >^""*ter  oath. 
court ;  but  this  is  not  essential ;  it  may  be  taken  before  any  officer 
competent  to  administer  oaths,  and  transmitted  to  the  probate 
court.^     Unless  they  qualify,  neither  an  executor  nor  an  adminis- 
trator has  autliority  to  act ;  what  they  attempt  to  do  as  such  is 
void,^  or  the  act  of  an  executor  de  son  tortJ 

In  some  States  it  is  necessary  for  the  administrator  to  take  an 
additional  oath  before  selling  real  estate  under  order  of  the  pro- 
bate court.  This  is  treated  of  in  connection  with  the  sale  of  real 
estate  for  the  payment  of  debts.^ 

1  Tuck  V.  Boone,  8  Gill,  187.  &  Succession   of  Penny,   13  La.   An. 

'■^  Hence  a  judgment  entered   against  94.     The  oath  may  be  taken  before  ap- 

a   "  sheriff   as   administrator   ex  officio  "  pointment :  Morris  v.  Chicago,  R.  I.  &  Pac. 

cannot  bind  the  estate :  Davis  v.  Shuler,  R.  R.,  65  Iowa,  727. 
supra.  ^  Moore  i'.  Ridgeway,  1  B.  Mon.  234; 

3  Roberts  v.  Longley,  41  Tex.  454.  Carter  v.  Carter,  10  B.  Mon.  327. 

*  Burnley  v.  Duke,  1  Rand.  108 ;  Miin-  ''  Ante,  ch.  xxi. 

roe  V.  James,  4  Munf.  194,  198.  8  Post,  §  472. 


568 


REVOCATION   OF   LETTERS. 


§266 


CHAPTER  XXIX. 

OF   THE  REVOCATION   OP   LETTERS   TESTAMENTARY   AND   OP 
ADMINISTRATION. 


Letters  cannot 
be  questioned 
collaterally, 

but  may  be 
revoked  or 
annulled  in  a 
direct  pro- 
ceeding. 


§  266.  Conclusiveness  of  the  Decree  or  Order  granting  Letters.  — 
Letters  testamentary  and  of  administration,  granted  by  a  court 
having  jurisdiction  for  such  purpose,  are,  while  un- 
repealed, conclusive  evidence  of  the  authority  of  tlie 
grantees,  and  cannot  be  impeached  collaterally,  even 
for  fraud, ^  although  they  may  be  revoked  or  annulled 
in  the  method  pointed  out  by  statute  to  that  end,  in  a 
direct  proceeding,  or  by  appeal.^  Until  such  revoca- 
tion by  the  decree  of  a  competent  court,  or  appeal,  it  cannot  be 
questioned  in  either  a  common  law  or  chancery  court,  and  it  fol- 
lows that  the  acts  of  an  executor  or  administrator  are  valid,  even 
though  the  probate  of  the  will  or  the  grant  of  letters  was  erro- 
neous, or  obtained  upon  fraudulent  representations,  or  under  a 
forged  will.^  The  binding  necessity  of  this  principle  has  been 
enlarged  upon  in  a  previous  chapter,  in  connection  with  the  sub- 
ject of  jurisdiction  of  probate  courts,*  and  again  when  considering 
the  nature  of  the  proof  necessary  to  establish  the  death  of  the 
testator  or  intestate.^     The  effect  of  appeal  from  the  grant  of 


1  See  on  this  subject,  ante,  eh.  xv., 
and  especially  §§  145,  146.  Among  the 
cases  specially  holding  that  letters  testa- 
mentary and  of  administration  cannot  be 
questioned  in  a  collateral  proceeding  may 
be  mentioned,  Sadler  r  Sadler,  16  Ark. 
628,  632 ;  Bryan  v.  Walton,  14  Ga.  185, 
196;  Emery  v.  HiJdreth,  2  Gray,  228; 
Fiinn  v.  Cliase,  4  Denio,  85 ;  Burnley  v. 
Duke,  2  Robins.  (Va.)  102,  129;  Morgan 
V.  Locke,  28  La.  An.  806  ;  James  v.  Ad- 
ams, 22  How.  Pr.  409  ;  Riley  v.  McCord, 
24  Mo.  265,  269  ;  Quidort  v.  Pergeaux, 
18  N.  J.  Eq.  472;  Belden  v.  Meeker,  47 
N.  Y.  307  ;  Pleasants  v.  Dunkin,  47  Tex. 
343,  Buehler  v.  Buffington,  43  Pa.  St. 
278,  293 ;  Hart  v.  Bostwick,  14  Fla.  162, 
174 ;    Succession  of    Lee,   28    La.    An. 


23,  24  ;  Barclay  v.  Kimsey,  72  Ga.  725  ; 
Plume  V.  Howard  Savings  Institution,  46 
N.  J.  L.  211 ;  Wheat  v.  Fuller,  82  Ala. 
572. 

2  As  to  the  effect  of  an  appeal  upon 
the  proceedings  in  the  probate  court,  see 
post,  §  542  et  seq. 

3  Peebles'  Appeal,  15  S.  &  R.  39  ;  Kit- 
tredge  v.  Folsom,  8  N.  H.  98  ;  Spencer  v. 
Gaboon,  4  Dcv.  L.  225 ;  Record  v.  How- 
ard, 58  Me.  225,  228 ;  Fisher  v.  Bassett,  9 
Leigh,  119;  Price  v.  Nesbitt,  1  Hill,  (S.  C.) 
Cli.  445,  461;  Benson  v.  Rice,  2  N.  & 
McC.  577  ;  Shephard  v.  Rhodes,  60  111. 
301  ;  Thompson  v.  Samson,  64  Gal.  330, 
332. 

4  Ante,  §§  145,  146. 
6  Ante,  %%  208-211. 


§  267  JURISDICTION   TO   REVOKE   LETTERS.  569 

letters  will  be  considered  in  connection  with  the  general  subject 
of  appeals  from  judgments  or  orders  of  the  probate  court.^ 

Letters  granted  by  a  court  having  no  jurisdiction,  jjcing  void, 
gain  no  validity  by  the  mere  lapse  of  time.  Sales  of  real  estate 
have  been  held  void,  and  the  purchaser  for  that  reason  Letters  by  a 
held  to  have  obtained  no  title,  more  than  twenty  years  I'.'T-un^dSon 
afterward.2  Nor  can  letters  granied  during  the  pen-  »>■«  ^"i'^- 
dency  of  a  contest  of  the  will,  which  are  on  that  account  void,  be 
supported  as  a  grant  of  letters  pendente  lite.^  But  where  the 
authority  is  suspended  by  an  appeal  from  the  decree  appointing 
the  administrator,  it  is  revived  upon  dismissal  of  the  appeal,  and 
dates  back  to  the  original  appointment  without  further  action.* 
An  appointment  made  by  a  court  having  no  jurisdiction  is  a 
nullity ;  hence  the  appointment  of  another,  by  a  court  having 
jurisdiction,  as  administrator  of  the  same  estate,  is  good  without 
formally  annulling  the  first  appointment.^ 

§  267.    Jurisdiction   to   revoke    Letters.  —  The    power  to   revoke 
the  authority  of  executors  (which  in  England  is  usually  termed 
the  revocation  of  probate^)  and  of  administrators  is  Power  to  re- 
in some  States  exercised  by  courts  of  equity,  when  of  executors  Or 

, ,  ,,...,...  , ,  ,  J      •     •       administrators 

they  obtain  jurisdiction  over  the  executor  or  admmis- 


is  in  some 


1  Post,  §  542  et  seq.  accurate  to  confound  the  revocation  of 

2  Holyoke  v.  Haskins,  5  Pick.  20.  probate  with  the  removal  of  the  executor  ; 

3  Slade  r.  Wasliburn,  3  Ired.  L.  557.  for  though  the  former  conditions  the 
*  Fletcher  v.  Fletcher,  29  Vt.  98.  latter  as  a  necessary  incident,  yet  the 
5  Ex  parte  Barker,  2  Leigh,  719.  latter  does  not  condition  the  former.  So 
^  The  cliange  introduced  in  most  of  with  regard  to  administration  :  revocation 

the  American  States,  of  ascribing  the  of  adnunistmlion  would  seem  to  imply  that 
authority  of  the  executor  to  the  appoint-  there  is  no  estate  liable  to  be  administered, 
ment  by  the  probate  court,  rather  than  to  and,  as  a  necessary  consequence,  that  no 
the  nomination  by  the  testator,  as  in  one  has  authority  as  administrator  ;  while 
England,  which  has  been  commented  on  the  revocation  o/ /eifers  granted  only  with- 
in connection  with  the  subject  of  the  dis-  draws  the  authority  of  the  person  admin- 
tinction  between  executors  and  adminis-  istering,  wliich  may  be  conferred,  upon 
trators  (ante,  §  171),  renders  it  necessary  some  other  person.  —  The  consequences, 
to  distinguish  between  the  revocation  therefore,  of  a  revocation  of  probate,  or 
of  probate,  —  the  consequence  of  which  of  administration,  must  be  to  annul  the 
would  seem  to  destroy  the  validity  of  tlie  will,  or  basis  of  administrntion,  constitut- 
will,  —  and  the  removal  of  the  executor,  ing  rather  a  judicial  declaration  that  the 
or  revocation  of  the  letters  testamentary  will,  or  estate  demanding  administration, 
granted  to  him,  which  leaves  all  the  tes-  never  existed;  while  the  removal  of  the 
tamentary  dispositions  intact,  except  as  executor  or  administrator,  or  the  recocor 
to  the  nomination  of  the  person  who  is  to  tion  of  letters  testamentary  or  of  adminis- 
executethem:  Schoul.  Ex.  §  157,  note  (4).  tration,  is  followed  by  the  same  conse- 
In  those  States  in  which  the  authority  of  qucnces  as  would  be  brought  on  by 
the  executor  is  conditioned  upon  appoint-  the  death  of  the  executor  or  adminis- 
ment  by  the  probate  court,  it  seems  in-  trator. 


570  REVOCATION   OF   LETTERS.  §  268 

States  exer-       trator,  under  the  well  known  rule,  that,  where  a  court 

cised  by  courts  '  ,  ' 

of  equity;  of  equity  obtahis  jurisdiction  for  one  purpose,  it  will 

retain  it  until  full  and  satisfactory  justice  is  rendered  to  all  the 
parties  concerned. ^  Thus,  in  a  case  calling  for  the  intervention  of 
chancery,  an  executor  may  be  restrained  from  squandering  and 
disposing  of  the  property  of  his  testator,  and  removed,  or  a  re- 
but in  extreme  ccivcr  appointed ;  2  .  and  an  administrator  may  be 
cases  only,  rcmovcd.^  But  where  this  authority  exists  in  courts 
of  chancery  at  all,  it  will  be  exercised  in  extreme  cases  only.* 

In  most  of  the  States,  however,  the  power  to  revoke  the  letters 
granted,  or,  as  it  is  more  usually  termed,  to  remove  an  executor 
and  is  in  most  OT  administrator,  is  vested  exclusively  in  the  probate 
exduliVeiyln  courts  ;  ^  supcrior  courts  exercising,  in  such  cases,  ap- 
probate courts,  pellate  jurisdiction  only,*^  or  granting  the  assistance  of 
equitj'  where  the  lower  court  is  without  the  necessary  power  to 
accomplish  justice.'^ 

§  268.  Recall  of  Letters  granted  ■without  Authority  in  the  Court. 
—  It  is  evident  that  the  judgment  or  decree  of  any  court  is  con- 
Letters  prop-  elusive  and  binding  upon  the  court  rendering  it,  as  well 
can  berecaUed  ^^  agaiust  all  the  world.^  Hence,  where  the  probate 
only  for  cause;  court  lias  oucc  regularly  conferred  the  appointment, 
it  cannot  remove  the  incumbent  except  for  causes  recognized 
by  the  law  as  sufficient,  and  in  the  manner  authorized  by  statute.^ 
But  it  is  an  inherent  power  in  every  judicial  tribu- 

but  if  granted  ,  .    ,      .  l 

without  author-  nal  to  corrcct  an  error  which  it  may  have  commit- 

1  Walker  v.  Morris,  14  Ga.  323.  The  senting  that  the  deceased  died  intestate, 
Code  of  Georgia  provides  that  "  the  judg-  knowing  that  he  liad  left  a  will,  was  re- 
inent  of  a  court  of  competent  jurisdiction  moved  upon  the  suit  of  a  foreign  execu- 
may  be  set  aside  by  a  decree  in  chancery  tor,  under  a  statute  authorizing  the 
for  fraud,  accident,  or  mistake,  or  tlie  acts  domiciliar  executor  of  another  State  to 
of  the  adverse  party  unmixed  with  the  use  all  process  and  remedies  as  if  he  had 
negligence  or  fault  of  the  complainant  "  :  qualified  in  Georgia. 

Code,  1882,  §  3595  (§§  3537,  3514,  of  for-  •»  Randle  v.  Carter,  62  Ala.  95,  101. 

mer  codes),  which  is  held  to  authorize  the  '^  Hosack  y.  Rogers,  11  Pai.  603,  606  ; 

revocation   of    letters  of  an  executor  or  Chew  v.  Chew,  3  Grant  Cas.  289  ;  Taylor 

administrator  by  decree  in  chancery.  v.   Biddle,  71  N.   C.   1,  5;    Holbrook  v. 

2  Chappelli'.  Akin,39Ga.  177  ;  Cooper  Campau,  22  Mich.  288;  Succession  of 
V.  Cooper,  5  N.  J.  Eq.  9,  11;  Clemens  v.  Wilhams,  26  La.  An.  207. 

Caldwell,   7   B.    Mon.    171  ;    Walters   v.  6  Ledbetter  v.  Lofton,  1  Murph.  224  ; 

Hill,  27  Graft.  388, 401  ;  Long  v.  Wortham,  Wilson  v.  Frazier,  2  Humph.  30. 
4  Tex.  .381 ;  Wilkins  v.  Harris,  Winst.  Eq.  '  Leddel  v.  Starr,  19  N.  J.  Eq.  159, 

(Part  II.)  41.  163. 

3  Wallace  v.  Walker,  87  Ga.  265.     The  »  See  ante,  §  146. 
administrator,  who  had  obtained  letters           ^  Schoul.  Ex.  §  157. 
of  administration  by  fraudulently  repre- 


§  268  RECALL   OF   LETTERS.  571 

ted,  when  no  positive  rule  of  law  Un-hhU  it.i  "  This  il^^^lVe^t-eal'ied 
power,"  says  Gray,  J.,  "does  not  make  the  decree  at  any  time, 
of  a  court  of  probate  less  conclusive  in  any  other  court,  or  in 
any  way  impair  the  probate  jurisdiction,  but  renders  that  jurisdic- 
tion more  complete  and  effectual."^  It  is,  therefore,  on  motion  of 
the  duty  of  the  court,  upon  the  application  of  any  f,"["restt'ore« 
party  in  interest,  or  even  ex  mero  motu,^  to  annul  or  ^neromotu. 
revoke  letters  granted  upon  proof  of  the  death  of  a  person  who 
subsequently  appears  alive  ;  ^  or  where  it  is  shown  that  there  was 
no  jurisdiction,  the  decedent  being  domiciled  at  the  time  of  his 
death  in  another  county,^  or  that  the  will  was  admitted  to  pro- 
bate through  fraud  or  error,^  or  that  a  later  will  or  codicil  should 
be  admitted;'  or  where  a  will  is  found  to  have  been  already  pro- 
bated,8  o^.  jg  discovered  after  grant  of  letters  of  administration 
generally ;  ^  or  where  an  administrator  with  the  will  annexed  is 
appointed  in  derogation  of  the  executor's  right,'*^  or  one  not 
preferred  is  appointed  administrator  before  the  expiration  of 
the  period  during  which  preference  is  given  by  statute  to  oth- 
ers ;  1^  or  where  administration  is  improperly  granted,  there 
being  no  estate  to  administer;^  or  where  it  is  granted  to  a 
person  or  by  a  judge  disqualified,^^  or  by  mistake  to  one  not  pre- 

1  McCabe  v.  Lewis,  76  Mo.  296,  301 ;  v.  Bradley,  Si  Ala.  694.  If  properly  au- 
"  The  power  to  revoke  is  necessarily  in-  thenticated  it  makes  no  difference  that  it 
herent  in  the  Orphan's  Court,  and  a  part  is  a  foreign  will :  Dalryniple  v.  Gamble, 
of  the  essence  of  the  power  delegated  to  66  Md.  "298. 

them  of  granting  administration  "  :  Dal-  i"  Baldwin  v.  Buford,  4  Yerg.  16. 

rymple  v.  Gamble,  66  Md  298,  311.  "  Mullanphy  v.  County  Court,  6  Mo. 

2  Waters  v.  Stickney,  12  Allen,  1,  15.  563 ;    Mills   v.    Carter,    8    Blackf.    203 ; 
8  County  Court  v.  Bissell,  2  Jones  L.  Williams's  Appeal,  7  Pa.  St.  259  ;  Tlionip- 

387  ;  Watson  v.  Glover,  77  Ala.  323,  325.  son  v.  Huckett,  2  Hill,  (S.  C.)  347  ;  Dun- 

4  See  ante,  §§  2U8-211,  on  the  validity  ham  v.  Roberts,  27  Ala.  701;  Barber  v. 
of  administration  on  the  estate  of  a  per-  Converse,  1  Redf.  830 ;  Stoever  v.  Lud- 
son  who  is  not  in  reality  dead,  and  wig,  4  S.  &  R.  201 ;  Skidmore  v.  Davies, 
authorities  there  cited.  Donaldson  v.  10  I'ai.  316  ;  Vreedenburgh  i\  Calf,  9  Pai. 
Lewis,  7  Mo.  App.  403.  128  ;  Proctor  v.  Wanmaker,  1   Barb.  Cli. 

5  Wilson  V.  Frazier,  2  Humph.  30 ;  302 ;  Public  Administrator  v.  Peters,  1 
Jolmson  V.  Corpenning,  4  Ired.  Eq.  216.  Bradf.  100;  McCaffrey's  Estate,  38  Pa. 
The  grant  in  such  case  is  not  absolutely  St.  331 ;  Wilson  v.  IIoss,  3  Humph.  142 ; 
voiil,  but  only  voidable  :  Coltart  v.  Allen,  Moore  v.  Moore,  1  Dev.  352  ;  Kerr  v. 
40  Ala.  155.  Kerr,  41  N.  Y.  272,  278. 

«  Hamberlin  v.  Terry,  1  Sm.  &  M.  Ch.  i-^  Estate  of  Huckstep,  5  Mo.  App.  581, 

589.  582  ;  Townsend  v.  Pell,  3  Dem.  367. 

7  Waters  v.  Stickney,  12  Allen,  1,  4.  i^  as  where  the  probate  judge  grant- 

8  Watson  !•.  Glover,  77  Ala.  323.  ,ing   letters   is   interested   in   the  estate: 

9  Edelen  v.  Edelen,  10  Md.  52,  56;  Cottle,  Appellant,  5  Pick.  483  ;  Sigourney 
Patton's  Appeal,  31  Pa.  St.  465;  Kittredge  i-.  Sibley,  21  Pick.  101,  and  s.  c.  22  Pick. 
V.  Folsom,  8  N.  H.  98,  107  ;  Broughton  507  ;  or  letters  are  granted  to  his  son : 


572  REVOCATION   OF   LETTERS.  §  269 

ferred,^  or  who  refuses  to  give  bond;^  or  where  an  administrator 
de  bonis  non  was  appointed  while  there  was  an  acting  executor 
or  administrator.^  In  all  of  these  cases  the  letters  granted  are 
either  void,  —  in  which  event  it  is  the  duty  of  the  court  to  revoke, 
or  rather  to  declare  null,  its  appointment,  so  as  to  correct  the 
record  and  prevent  further  mischief  from  being  done,  as  soon  as 
the  true  facts  become  known  to  it,  whether  by  evidence,  or  other- 
wise; —  or  they  are  voidable,  and  may  be  revoked  upon  the  appli- 
cation of  some  person  having  an  interest  in  the  estate,  and  upon 
notice  or  citation  to  the  person  to  be  removed.'^ 

§  269.  Theory  of  Removal  for  Cause.  —  The  grounds  upon  which 
an  executor  or  administrator  will  be  removed  for  cause  are  mani- 
instancesof  fold,  and  arc  commonly  designated  in  the  statutes. 
cat!ses°for  ^^^  Missouri  thc  statute  provides  for  the  revocation  of 
removal.  letters  in  the  following  cases,  which  may  be  looked 

upon  as  a  fair  and  comprehensive  resume  of  the  provisions  on 
this  subject  in  the  several  States  :  "  If  any  executor  or  adminis- 
trator become  of  unsound  mind,  or  be  convicted  of  any  felony  or 
other  infamous  crime,  or  has  absented  himself  from  the  State  for 
the  space  of  four  months,  or  become  an  habitual  drunkard,  or  in 
any  wise  incapable  or  unsuitable  to  execute  the  trust  reposed  in 
him,  or  fail  to  discharge  his  official  duties,  or  waste  or  mismanage 
the  estate,  or  act  so  as  to  endanger  any  co-executor  or  co-admin- 
istrator, the  court,  upon  complaint  in  writing,  made  by  any  per- 
son interested,  supported  by  affidavit,  and  ten  days'  notice  given 
to  the  person  complained  of,  shall  hear  the  complaint,  and,  if  it 
finds  it  just,  shall  revoke  the  letters  granted."  ^  In  addition  to 
this,  it  is  made  the  duty  of  the  court  to  revoke  letters  of  adminis- 
tration whenever  a  will  of  the  supposed  intestate  is  found  and 
receives  probate,  and  letters  testamentary  when  the  probate  of  a 
will  upon  which  they  were  issued  shall  be  set  aside  ;  *^  and  also 
to  revoke  the  letters  of  an  executrix  or  administratrix  upon  her 

Koger  V.  Franklin,  79  Ala.   505 ;    or  to  ferred   to   administer :   Corn   v.    Corn,  4 

a    minor:    Carow    v.   Mowatt,    2    Edw.  Dem.  394. 

Ch.  57.  2  Morgan  v.  Dodge,  supra. 

1  Morgan  v.  Dodge,  44  N.  H.  255 ;  or  «  Creath    v.    Brent,    3    Dana,    129  ; 

upon    fraudulent   representations;    ante.  Springs  y.  Erwin,  6  Ired.  L.  27;  Griffith 

§  146;   Marston  v.  Wilcox,  2  111.  60.     In  v.  Frazier,  8  Or.  9. 

New  York,  the  "false   suggestion   of  a  *  Gary  Pr.  L.  §  314;  Schoul.  Ex.  §  155; 

material  fact "  authorizing  the  revocation  see  infra,  §  269. 
of  letters  must  be  made  to  tlie  tribunal  ^  Rev.  St.  1879,  §  43. 

granting  the  letters,  and  not  to  one  pre-         ^  Ibid.,  §§  40,  41. 


§  269  THEORY   OF  REMOVAL   FOR   CAUSE.  573 

marriage,^  and  of  an  executor  or  administrator  becoming  non- 
resident ;  2  and  when  an  executor  or  administrator  fails,  upon 
service  of  citation,  or  publication  of  citation  if  he  cannot  be  found, 
to  make  settlement,  his  letters  may  be  revoked.'^  In  the  nature 
of  things,  a  power  which  may  be  invoked  in  such  a  variety  of 
instances  must  largely  depend  upon  the  discretion  of  pj^^^^j;^^  ^^ 
the  iudge  for  its  proper  exercise.     It  is  easy  enough  be  exercised 

"  .  bv  court. 

to  legally  ascertain  whether  a  man  has  been  adjudged  ' 
insane,  or  convicted  of  infamous  crime,  or  become  a  non-resident 
or  an  habitual  drunkard  ;  or  whether  an  executrix  has  married. 
But  it  is  also  apparent  that  these  facts  do  not  in  themselves 
constitute  incapacity  to  administer  :  they  arc  the  mere  indicia 
from  the  existence  of  which  the  law  conclusively  presumes  the 
existence  of  the  incapacity.'*  In  contemplation  of  law  the  in- 
capacity may  exist  without  these,  or  any  specially  defined  symp- 
toms ;  hence,  in  its  solicitude  to  protect  estates  of  deceased 
persons  and  secure  efficient  administration  thereof,  it  clothes  the 
judge  of  probate  with  power  to  ascertain  the  incapacity  from 
other  sources,  —  if  he  become  "  in  any  tvise  incapable  or  unsuita- 
ble to  execute  the  trust,"  ^  or  "  fail  to  discharge  his  official 
duties,"  or  "  waste  or  mismanage  the  estate,"  —  and  if  ascertained, 
to  revoke  the  authority  granted.  Where  the  interest  of  the  ad- 
ministrator is  adverse  to  the  estate,  for  instance,  it  is  clear  that 
he  is  an  "  unsuitable  "  person  to  administer  it,  and  in  such  case 
nothing  but  some  controlling  necessity  will  justify  his  retention 
as  administrator.*'  So  where  there  is  such  hostility  between  the 
administrator  and  the  legatees  or  distributees  as  will  prevent  a 
proper  management  of   the  estate.''      The  discretion   vested   in 

1  Ibid.,  §  42.  administrator  may  be  removed  "where, 

2  Ibid.,  §  10.  •  •  .  from  habitual  drunkenness,  ...  lie 
8  Ibid.,  §228.   Before  the  late  revision     is  rendered  incapable  of  discharging  his 

revocation  was  compulsory  in  sucli  case  ;  trust  to  the  interest  of  the  estate." 
the  word  "  shall "  was  changed  to  "  may."  "  In  Pennsylvania  the  Orphans'  Court 

See  Wagner's  Statutes,  ch.  2,  art.  v.,  §  8.  removed   two  executors  on  the   ground 

*  The   court's  discretion  will   not  be  that  one  was  largely  insolvent,  and  the 

reviewed   unless   abused  :    McFadden   v.  acts  of  the  other  were  "  of  a  character 

Ross,  93  Ind.  134.     In  Indiana  it  is  held  so  doubtful  that  we  feel  that  the  estate 

that  habitual  drunkenness   is   cause   for  would  be  subject  to  risks  at  his  hands, 

the  removal  of  an  administrator,  without  from  which  it  should  be  relieved":  Estate 

also  showing  that  the  administrator  had  of  Greentree,  12  Phila.  10. 
thereby  become  incapable  of  discharging  ^  Kellberg's  Appeal,  86  Pa.  St.  129. 

his  duties  :  Gurley  v.  Butler,  83  Ind.  501.  "<  Kimball's  Appeal,  45  Wise.  391. 

The  statute  in  this  State  proTides  that  an 


574  EEVOCATION   OF   LETTERS.  §  269 

f  judges  of  probate  is,  therefore,  not  an  arbitrary  one, 

rarj,     ^^  ^^  ^^^  ^.^^  .^  ^^^  supposcd  to  be  in  the  ordinary 

at  common   law,^  who   might   repeal   an  administration   at   his 
pleasure,  nor  yet  so  narrow  as  to  prevent  him  from 

nor  too  narrow,  ^.  i      •    •    -      j.-         x      j.i  •£       r.  •    j.- 

grantmg  administration  to  the  wile  alter  appointing 
the  father,  in  ignorance  of  the  existence  of  a  wife,  on  the  ground 
that,  having  exercised  the  power  of  appointment,  his  hands  are 
but  in  further-  closcd ;  ^  but  to  bc  cxcrciscd  in  furtherance  of  the 
ob'ect  oHhe  paramount  end  and  aim  of  the  law.  Such  is  the  law 
law.  in  every  State  of  the  Union,  although  couched  in  dif- 

ferent phraseology,  —  as  well  as,  at  this  day,  in  England.^  Yet, 
while  the  safety  and  efficient  administration  of  the  estate  is  the 
paramount  object  to  be  accomplished,  courts  will  not  permit  this 
consideration  to  control  personal  rights,  or  to  lead  to  the 
impeachment  of  the  competency  or  integrity  of  an  appointee 
merely  because  some  other  person  may  be  better  qualified  for  the 
.     ....      trust.     Where  the  appointment  of  an  administrator 

An  administra-  '  '  p     i        • 

tor  cannot         is  left  to  the  Unconditioned  discretion  of  the  judge, 
the  sole  ground  he  wiU  be  Controlled  by  this  consideration  in  making 
qua\me4  may'^   the  sclcction ;  but  having  made  it,  the  appointee  can 
f  ^^  appointed.     ^^  removcd  only  upon  proof  of  such  facts  as  constitute 

/  a  breach  of  the  trust,  in  ascertaining  which  the  judge  may  be 

(  aided  by  considering  whether  the  conduct  or  acts  complained  of 

y  render  the  principal  liable  on  his  bond  ;  since,  as  a  general  propo- 

sition, the  liability  of  the  surety  arises  only  upon  misconduct  of 
No  revocation  the  principal.  And  there  should  never  be  a  revoca- 
withont  notice.  ^^^^-^  witliout  duc  noticc  to  the  party,  informing  him  of 
the  matters  alleged  against  him,  and  enabling  him  to  defend.*     It 

1  Wms.  Ex.  [576],  who  quotes  Brown  Cal.  343;  Murray  v.  Oliver,  3  B.  Mon.  1; 
V.  Wood,  Aleyn,  06.  Casque  v.  Moody,  12  Sm.  &  M.  153  ;  God- 

2  Sir  George  Sands' Case,  Siderfin,  179.  win  i\  Hooper,  45  Ala.  613  ;  Vaih^Civan, 

3  "It  is  now  agreed  that  the  adminis-  55  Tnd.  59  ;  Hostetter's  Appeal,  6  Watts, 
tration,  though  granted  to  the  next  of  244 ;  Levering  v.  Levering,  64  Md.  399, 
kin,  may  be  repealed  by  the  court,  not  410.  But  in  Mississippi  tlie  revocation 
arbitrarily,  yet  where  there  shall  be  just  was  held  proper,  without  notice,  where, 
cause  for  so  doing  ;  of  wliich  the  temporal  upon  the  complaint  of  his  surety,  cita- 
courts  are  to  judge":  Wnis.  on  Ex.  [577].  tion  issued  to  the  administrator,  which 

*  An  administrator  cannot  be  removed  could  not  be  served   because  he   was  a 

without  legal  cause,  defined  in  the  statute,  non-resident  of  the  State:  Hardaway  v. 

and  after  notice  to  him  :  Bieber's  Appeal,  Parham,  27  Miss.  103.     And  so  in  South 

11  Pa.   St.  157  ;   Wingate  v.  Wooten,  5  Carolina :  McLaurin  v.  Thompson,  Dud- 

Sm.  &  M.  245;   Muirhead  v.  Muirhead,  ley,  335,  the  appointment  of  another  being 

6  Sm.  &  M.  451  ;  Hanifan  v.  Needles,  108  held   a  sufficient   revocation  of  the   au- 

111.  403 ;  Schroeder  v.  Superior  Court,  70  tliority  of  an  administrator  who  left  the 


§  270  CAUSES   JUSTIFYING   REVOCATION.  575 

is  held  in  California,  that  the  administrator  has  no  right  to  have 
the  issues  tried  hy  a  jury  ;  ^  but  in  Indiana,  this  is  doubted.^  In 
the  latter  State,  and  in  North  Carolina,  an  answer  to  the  applica- 
tion and  other  pleadings  may  be  filed.^ 

§  270.  Causes  justifying  Revocation  of  Letters.  —  There  are 
numerous  adjudications  indicating  the  particular  acts  or  line  of 
conduct  which  require  the  removal  from  office  of  an 
executor  or  administrator,  as  well  as  those  which  do  fumisforpri- 
not  justify  the  revocation  of  their  authority.  The  ''^'^  i'"""!'"^*^^- 
most  fruitful  source  of  trouble  and  litigation  is  the  unwarranted 
application  of  the  trust  funds  to  the  private  use  of  the  executor 
administrator,  guardian,  or  curator,  and  one  which  but  too  often 
leads  to  their  own  financial  ruin,  as  well  as  the  destruction  of  the 
estates  committed  to  their  care.  The  temptation  to  employ  the 
funds  in  the  hands  of  a  trustee  in  private  speculations  promising 
ample  returns,  or  even  in  liis  own  apparently  safe  and  lucrative 
business  is  sometimes  overpowering  in  unscrupulous  persons,  but 
equally  fraught  with  most  disastrous  results  when  yielded  to  in 
good  faith,  and  without  suspicion  that  it  involves  a  violation  of 
the  law.  Absurd  as  it  may  appear,  yet  many  of  the  cases  under 
this  branch  of  the  law  concern  those  who  in  good  faith  believe, 
find  many  more  those  who  make  a  specious  pretence  of  believing, 
that  a  guardian  or  administrator,  having  been  appointed  to  take 
charge  of  an  estate,  and,  it  may  be,  given  bond  for  its  faithful 
administration,  may  legally  treat  the  funds  as  their  own,  being 
liable  only  to  produce  them  when  the  proper  time  shall  arrive. 
An  estate  in  the  hands  of  such  a  person  is  not  safe,  and  it  would 
seem  that  he  is  "  unsuitable  to  execute  the  trust  reposed  in  him."  * 

State.   In  Alabama,  notice  by  publication  whole  of  it  in  a  manner  not  authorized, 

is  sufficient  to  a  non-resident  executor  or  although  for  tlie  benefit  of  the  rpsfni  que 

administrator  :    Crawford    v.    Tyson,    46  tntst,  Jones,  J.,  of  tiie  Superior  Court  of 

Ala.  299.  the  Citv  of  New  York,  held,  that  "  one  who 

1  Doyle's  Estate,  Myr.  68.  Ims  so  failed  properly  to  underistaiid  iiis 

2  Phelps  V.  Martin,  74  Ind.  339,  341  ;  duties,  and  by  reason  of  such  failure  has 
but  see  McFadden  v.  Ross,  9-1  Ind.  184.  exposed  the  fund  to  the  hazard  of  being 

3  McFadden  v.  Ross,  supra  ;  Edwards  lost  by  iiis  insolvency,  has  in  fact  allowed 
V.  Cobb,  95  N.  C.  4,  9,  commenting  on  the  the  corpus  to  be  eaten  up,  and  keeps  the 
method  of  procedure.  fund  still  exposed  to  hazard  and  loss  by 

*  Hence,  where  a  trustee  for  minor  reason  of  business  vicissitudes,  and  also 
children  had,  although  with  a  good  inten-  exposed  to  entangling  litigation  in  case 
tion,  and  not  throu<,di  dishonesty  or  want  of  his  decease,  should  not  be  retained 
of  fidelity,  neglected  to  keep  tlie  fund  in-  as  trustee  "  :  Deen  v.  Cozzens,  7  Robt. 
vested,  mingled  it  with  his  own  and  used  (N.  Y.)  178.  To  the  same  effect,  Clem- 
it,  and  claimed  to  have  appropriated  the  ens  v.  Caldwell,  7  B.  Monr.  171  ;  Hake  v. 


576 


REVOCATION    OF   LETTERS. 


§270 


r 


Accordingly,  one  who  is  squandering  the  estate,^  or  is  wasting, 
neglecting,  or  mismanaging  it,^  or  guilty  of  gross  carelessness  in 
its  management,^  or  refuses  to  inventory  property  pointed  out  to 
him  as  having  been  conveyed  in  fraud ,4  or  to  redeem  property  at 
the  request  of  a  creditor,^  or  fails  to  make  and  return  an  inven- 
tory of  the  estate,'^  or  to  perform  the  duties  of  his  trust,'  or  the 
orders  of  court  in  reference  thereto,*^  or  gives  unauthorized  prefer- 
ence to  creditors,^  or  conveys  property  of  the  estate  to  his  sureties 
to  indemnify  them,^^  or  fails  to  render  his  annual  account  when 
required,^^  will  be  removed,  and  an  administrator  de  bonis  non 
appointed.  So  where  one,  who  was  a  resident  of  the  State  when 
appointed,  becomes  a  non-resident ;  ^^  ^^t  in  Georgia  it  is  held 
that  the  removal  from  the  State  of  either  an  executor  or  an  ad- 
ministrator after  appointment  is  not  a  sufficient  ground  to  revoke 
his  authority  ;  ^^  in  Vermont,  he  will  not  be  removed,  if  his  non- 
residence  was  known  at  the  time  the  appointment  was  made,^*  and 


Stott,  5  Col.  140.  So  the  sale  of  stock 
belonging  to  the  estate  in  his  individual 
name,  without  authority  of  court,  is  suffi- 
cient in  Maryland  to  justify  an  executor's 
removal  :  Levering  v.  Levering,  64  Md. 
399,  412. 

1  Newcomb  v.  Williams,  9  Met.  (Mass.) 
525  ;  Emerson  r.  Bowers,  14  Barb.  658. 

2  Lucich  V.  Medin.  3  Nev.  93 ;  Travis 
v.  Insley,  28  La.  An.  784;  Fernbacher 
V.  Fernbacher,  4  Dem.  227,  243 ;  s.  c.  17 
Abb.  N.  C.  339 ;  Gray  v.  Gray,  39  N.  J. 
Eq.  332. 

3  Rogers  v.  Morrison,  21  La.  An.  455; 
Reynolds  v.  Zink,  27  Gratt.  29. 

*  Andrews  v.  Tucker,  on  the  ground 
that  creditors  have  a  right  to  try  the 
question  of  fraudulent  conveyance  :  7 
Pick.  250 ;  Minor  v.  Mead,  3  Conn.  289. 

6  Glines  v.  Weeks,  137  Mass.  547,  550. 

6  Oglesby  v.  Howard,  43  Ala.  144; 
Williams  r.  Tobias,  37  Ind.  345  ;  Estate 
of  Brophy,  12  Pliila.  18;  Hubbard  v. 
Smith,  45  Ala.  516  (if  the  omission  was 
wilful)  ;  Matter  of  West,  40  Hun,  291; 
McFadden  v.  Ross,  93  Ind.  134. 

7  Marsh  v.  The  People,  15  111.  284, 
287;  Chew  v.  Chew,  3  Grant  Cas.  289; 
Wildridge  v.  Patterson,  15  Mass.  148. 

8  Wright  V.  McNatt,  49  Tex.  425,  429. 

9  Foltz  V.  Prouse,  17  111.  487. 

10  Fleet  V.  Simmons,  3  Dem.  542. 


11  Taylor  v.  Biddle,  71  N.  C.  1  ;  Arm- 
strong V.  Stowe,  77  N.  C.  360  ;  Brown 
V.  Ventress,  24  La.  An,  187  ;  Colliers  v. 
Hollier,  13  La.  An.  585. 

12  Succession  of  Winn,  27  La.  An. 
687  ;  Hall  v.  Monroe,  27  Tex.  700 ;  Suc- 
cession of  Vogel,  20  La.  An.  81  ;  Craw- 
ford r.  Tyson,  46  Ala.  299;  Harris  v. 
Dillard,  31  Ala.  191  ;  Yerkes  v.  Broom,  10 
La.  An. 94  ,  Prick's  Appeal,  114  Pa.  St.  29, 
34  ;  Trumble  ('Williams,  18  Neb.  144.  But 
in  Louisiana  the  absence  of  an  executor  or 
administrator  is  no  cause  for  removal  un- 
less the  estate  shall  thereby  suffer  ■  Suc- 
cession of  McDonogh,  7  La.  An.  472,  and 
the  onus  to  prove  this  is  on  the  party 
moving  the  revocation  :  Scott  v.  Lawson, 
10  La.  An.  547.  In  Texas  the  court  may 
temporarily  suspend  the  authority  of  an 
executor  on  account  of  his  absence,  and 
appoint  a  receiver  :  Long  v.  Wortliam, 
4  Tex.  881.  In  Missouri,  non-residence 
of  an  executor  or  administrator  disquali- 
fies him;  but  there  must  be  an  order 
of  court  declaring  his  removal  on  that 
ground:    State  v.  Rucker,  59  Mo.  17. 

13  Walker  v.  Torrance,  12  Ga.  604; 
Brown  v.  Strickland,  28  Ga.  387. 

1*  A  fortiori,  if  the  motion  comes  from 
one  who  has  been  sued  for  a  debt  to  the 
testator  by  the  executor :  Wiley  v.  Brain- 
erd,  11  Vt.  107. 


§  271  WHAT   TS   INSUFFICIENT   TO   JUSTIFY.  577 

in  Wisconsin  it  is  held  to  bo  discretionary  willi  the  probate  court 
to  remove  or  not  on  the  ground  of  non-residence.^  The  marriage 
of  an  administratrix,  in  the  absence  of  statutory  provision  to  the 
contrary,  is  a  revocation  of  her  authority .^  The  duty  to  revoke 
follows  self-evidently  from  the  refusal  or  neglect  of  an  executor 
or  administrator  to  give  the  bond  required  by  the  court ;  ^  but 
even  in  this  case  notice  and  opportunity  to  furnish  the  surety 
should  be  given.*  Where  an  executor  joined  the  Confederate 
army  and  left  the  Federal  lines,  he  was  held  to  have  forfeited  his 
trust ;  ^  and  in  Arkansas  it  was  held  that  the  probate  court  prop- 
erly appointed  an  administratrix  in  place  of  one  who  became  a 
soldier,  and  was  therefore  unable  to  give  proper  attention  to  the 
estate,  thereby  impliedly  revoking  his  authority.^  Acrimonious 
and  hostile  feelings  between  the  executor  and  the  testator's 
widow,  and  between  him  and  a  legatee,  intercepting  efficient  and 
prudent  management  of  the  estate,  has  been  held  sufficient  cause 
for  removal ; ''  and  so  the  refusal  of  an  executor  to  permit  his 
co-executors  to  inspect  and  examine  the  papers  belonging  to  the 
estate,^  or  an  attempt  liy  false  representations  and  suggestions  to 
buy  the  interest  of  a  residuary  legatee  for  an  inconsiderable  sum.^ 
§  271.  What  deemed  insufficient  to  justify  Revocation.  —  The 
cases  negativing  the  propriety  of  revocation  under  the  circum- 
stances in  evidence  therein  are  at  least  fully  as  in-  causes  deemed 
structive  as  those  already  mentioned.  So  it  is  held  a^^lh^rTzTre-*' 
that,  before  a  creditor  can  have  the  administratrix  of  '"o^'a'- 
a  succession  removed,  he  must  allege  and  show  that  he  has  been 
injured  by  the  maladministration  complained  of,^*^  and  the  court 
has  no  authority  to  remove  one  upon  the  complaint  of  his  co- 

1  Cutler  V.  Howard,  9  Wise.  309.  *  See  authorities  unrlpr  §  269,  antr. 

2  Kavanaugh  v.  Thompson,  16  Ala.  5  He'bert  v.  Jackson,  28  La.  An.  377. 
817  ;  Duhme  v.  Young,  3  Bush,  348  ;  ^  I'^nglish,  C.  J.,  in  rendering  the  opin- 
Tesehemacher  v.  Tliompson,  IS  Cal.  11,  ion,  says,  "Non-management,  by  ah- 
20.  It  is  held  in  California  that  marriage  sence  as  a  soldier  on  duty  in  the  field 
does  not  deprive  her  eo  insta/iti  of  her  remote  from  the  estate,  miglit  be  as  dis- 
powers,  but  renders  her  incompetent,  so  astrous  as  mismanagement.  ...  It  would 
that  she  may  be  proceeded  against  for  liave  been  more  regular  to  revoke  his 
suspension  and  removal  :  Scliroeder  v.  letters  directly  in  the  order  appointing 
Superior  Court,  70  Cal.  343.  her,  but  his  letters  were  by  implication 

3  Succession   of   De   Flechier,   1    La.  revoked " :   Berry  v.  Bellows,  30  Ark.  198, 
An.   20 ;    Davenport   v.   Irvine,   4   J.   J.  207. 

Marsh.  GO  ;  In  re  Brinson,  73  N.  C.  278  ;  ^  Estate  of  Tike,  4-5  Wise  301. 

Bills  V.  Scott,  49  Tex.  430  ;  Cohen's  Ap-  »  Chew's  Estate,  2  Parsons,  153. 

peal.  2  Watts,  175 ;  Garrison  v.  Cox,  95  ^  Lett  r.  Emmett,  37  N.  J.  Eq.  535. 

N.  C.  353  ;  Clark  v.  Niles,  42  Miss.  460.  ^^  Succession  of  Decuir,  23  La.  An.  166. 
VOL.  I.  —  37 


578  REVOCATION    OF   LETTERS.  §  271 

executor  who  is  not  injured  ;^  nor  should  an  executor  be  removed 
upon  a  ground  rendering  him  unsuitable,  which  existed  and  was 
known  at  the  time  of  his  appointment,  without  proof  that  this 
ground  continued  to  exist.^  Failure  to  make  settlement  is  a  cause 
for  removal ;  but  where  the  heirs  divided  the  whole  estate  among 
themselves,  there  being  no  debts,  this  was  held  a  good  administra- 
tion, and  that  the  failure  to  make  returns,  where  there  was  no  oc- 
casion for  them,  was  not  a  sufficient  cause  for  revocation  ;3  nor 
where  there  is  a  mere  omission,  without  citation,  where  the  proof 
shows  no  neglect  or  wilful  default ;  *  nor  does  the  failure  to  file 
accounts  constitute  a  forfeiture  to  the  right  of  administration  ip8o 
facto,  but  must  be  judicially  declared.^  The  refusal  to  account  for 
moneys,  which  the  executors  received  from  the  testatrix  more 
than  twenty  years  before  her  death,  and  the  fact  that  almost  the 
whole  of  her  estate  consists  of  debts  due  from  the  executors,  are 
not  sufficient  causes  for  their  removal  as  unsuitable  to  the  trust.^ 
In  New  Jersey  it  was  decided  that  a  court  of  equity  has  jurisdic- 
tion to  restrain  an  executor  who  abuses  his  trust  from  further 
interfering  with  the  estate ;  but  it  is  not  sufficient  to  charge,  in 
general  terms,  an  abuse ;  the  facts  showing  the  abuse  must  be 
stated ;  and  the  fact  that  ten  years  have  elapsed  since  the  death 
of  the  testator,  and  that  the  executor  has  not  settled  his  account 
in  the  orphan's  court,  is  not  sufficient,  nor  the  additional  fact  that 
he  has  failed  in  business,  and  that  three  years  before  the  filing  of 
the  bill  he  was  discharged  in  bankruptcy."  Bankruptcy  and  insol- 
vency may  be  good  cause  for  the  removal  of  an  administrator, 
although  it  does  not  ^^^so  facto  impair  his  official  authority;^  but 
poverty  is  not,^  unless  the  condition  of  the  appointee  has  subse- 

1  Dowfly  V.  Graham,  42  Miss.  451,  458.     him    as  for  contempt,  and   for  this  cause 

2  Lehr    v.   Tarball,    2    How.    (Miss.)     remove  liim  :  Haiiifan  w.  Needles,  108  111. 
905  ;  Drake  v.  Green,  10  Allen,  124,  hold-     403,  411  (two  judges  dissenting). 

ing,   also,   that    the    existence    ot    such  5  jyxcCleland  ;;.  Bideman,  5  La.  An.563. 
ground  at  the  time  of  tlie  appointment  «  Hnssey  v.  CofBn,  1  Allen,  354;  Win- 
constituted  no  defence  to  the  revocation,  ship  r.  Bass,  12  Mass.  199. 
if  it  continued  to  exist.  "^  Cooper  v.  Cooper,  5  N.  J.  Eq.  9. 

3  Harris  v.  Seals,  29  Ga.  585.  «  Edwards's  Estate,  12  Phila.  85 ;  Lox- 
*  Dowdy  u.  Graham,  si^pra;  Succession  ley's    Estate,  14  Phila.  317;   Dwight  v. 

of  Head,  28  La.  An.  800.     In  Illinois  it  Simon,   4   La.   An.    490  ;    McFadgen   v. 

is  lield  that,  on  refusal   to  make  settle-  Council,  81  N.  C.  195 ;  Shields  v.  Shields, 

nient,  the  next  step  is  an  attachment  for  60  Barb.  56. 

contempt,  and  if,  when  brought  before  the  ^  Shields  v.  Shields,  supra  ;  Freeman 

court,  he  still  refuses  to  make  settlement,  v.  Kellogg,  4  Redf.  218,  224;  Postley  v. 

the  court  is  then  required  to  deal  with  Cheyne,  4  Dem.  492. 


§  271  WHAT   IS   INSUFFICIENT   TO  JUSTIFY.  579 

quently  become  changed.^  An  administrator  should  not  be  re- 
moved on  the  mere  ground  that  he  can  neither  read  nor  write, 
nor  because  he  has  a  slight  knowledge  of  the  English  language,^ 
if  he  performs  his  duties  j)ro])erly.3  It  is  the  duty  of  adminis- 
trators to  contest  doubtful  claims  against  the  estate,  and  one  is 
not  therefore  liable  to  be  removed  for  reasonable  delay  in  the 
administration  caused  by  the  discharge  of  this  duty.'^  Errors  of 
judgment  not  amounting  to  malfeasance  are  not  ground  for  re- 
moval.^ Where  an  administrator  is  appointed  in  i)lace  of  one 
having  priority  under  the  statute,  but  who  fails  to  give  the  bond 
or  to  apply  within  the  limited  time  allowed  him,  the  former  can- 
not be  removed  to  make  place  for  the  latter,  because  he  is  subse- 
quently able  to  give  the  bond,^  or  makes  the  application."  In 
Louisiana,  executors  and  administrators  are  required  to  deposit 
the  funds  of  the  estate  in  the  manner  pointed  out  by  statute  ;  but 
the  failure  to  deposit  a  sum  but  slightly  greater  than  the  amount 
of  the  cost  of  administration  is  not  a  sufficient  ground  for  removal.^ 
A  trustee  is  not,  at  common  law  and  under  the  law  in  most  of  the 
States,  permitted  to  acquire  property  by  purchase  at  the  trustee 
sale  ;  but  such  a  purchase  is  not  in  itself  proof  of  waste  or  mis- 
management, and  hence  not  a  ground  for  the  removal  of  an  ex- 
ecutor.^ The  court  will  not  remove  an  administrator  regularly 
appointed,  upon  the  suggestion  of  a  party  who  was  privy  to  the 
appointment,  that  the  administrator  is  indebted  to  the  estate, 
which  is  denied  by  the  administrator ;  the  proper  remedy  is  to 
surcharge  the  administrator's  account  in  the  orphan's  court ;  '^^ 
but  where  an  administrator  has  an  adverse  personal  interest  in  an 
action  against  himself  as  administrator,  and  made  no  defence  to 
the  same,  he  should  be  removed  upon  proof  of  tiie  existence  of  a 

1  Wilkins  v.  Harriss,  1  Wins.  (N.  C.)  ^  Succession  of  Sparrow,  39  La.  An. 

Eq.  No.  2,  41.  696. 

■^  Hassey  v.  Keller,  1  Dem.  577  ;  Gregg  ^  Williams'.s  Case,  18  Abb.  Pr.  .3-50. 

y.  Wilson,  24  Iiid.  227.  ^  Jinkins    r.   Sapp,   3   Jones   L.  510; 

3  Estate  of  Pacheco,  23  Cal.  476  ;  Cole  v.  Dial,  12  Tex.  100 ;  Mayes  v.  lions- 
Gregg  I'.  Wilson,  24  Ind.  227.  "As  a  ton,  61  Tex.  690;  and  tiiis  although  the 
general  rule,  hovvever,"  says  Frazer,  J.,  letters  were  granted  prematurely,  if  the 
"it  might  be  better  if  those  wholly  un-  party  entitled  had  not  applied  within 
educated  were  not  appointed  to  such  the  time  allowed  :  .Sowell  v.  Sowell,  41 
positions  of  trust  and  responsibility."  Ala.  3-59 ;    Markland  v.  Albes,  81    Ala. 

*  Andrews  v.  Carr,  2  R.  I.  117,  iiolding  433. 

that  a  delay  of  five  months  to  petition  for  ^  Peale  v.  White,  7  La.  An.  449. 

a  new  trial  on  a  judgment  obtained  against  ^  Webb  i'.  Dietrich,  7  Watts  &  S.  401. 

the  estate  was  not  unreasonable.  1°  Maloney's  Estate,  5  Pa.  Law  J.  R.  139. 


580  REVOCATION   OF    LETTERS.  §  271 

defence,  or  of  the  bona  fide  belief  of  its  existence  in  the  distribu- 
tees.^ In  New  York  it  was  held  that  an  executor's  letters  would 
not  be  revoked  at  his  own  request,  on  the  ground  that  he  has  in- 
terests as  surviving  partner  of  the  deceased,  antagonistic  to  his 
duties  as  executor  ;2  it  is  no  ground  for  removal  of  an  executor 
that  the  will  was  contested  subsequently  to  his  appointment,^  nor 
that  he  fails  to  sell  land,  although  the  direction  in  the  will  is  im- 
perative, where  the  time  of  selling  is  left  to  his  discretion.*  And 
so,  although  the  payment  by  an  administrator  of  his  own  del)t  out 
of  the  estate  is  a  breach  of  trust,  for  which  he  may  be  removed, 
yet  if  the  interest  of  those  concerned  has  not  been  imperilled  by 
the  amount  used,  the  sum  being  small  in  comparison  with  the 
funds  remaining  in  his  hands,  and  no  improper  or  dishonest  mo- 
tives can  be  imputed  to  him,  he  should  not  be  removed.^  "  An 
executor  may  commit  errors  in  his  accounts,  or  make  mistakes  in 
his  construction  of  the  will ;  these  the  court  will  correct,  but  will 
not  remove  the  executor,  unless  there  is  wilful  misconduct,  waste, 
or  improper  disposition  of  the  assets."  ^ 

§  272.  Who  may  move  for  Revocation.  —  Courts  will  not  per- 
mit one  who  has  no  direct  interest  in  the  estate,  or  who  cannot 
Parties  having  he  benefited  by  the  order  which  he  prays  for,  to  prose- 
not'demand'*""  ^^^^  ^^^^  ^^^^  removal  of  an  executor  or  administrator. 
tiie  removal  of   Heucc  it  is  required  that  in  the  petition  or  motion  the 

an  executor  or  ^  '^ 

administrator,  interest  of  the  party  presenting  it  shall  be  stated,  and 
wherein  it  has  been  or  is  about  to  be  affected  by  the  party  to  be 
removed.  And  it  is  not  sufficient  to  charge  mismanagement, 
misapplication  of  funds,  or  maladministraton  in  general  terms, 
but  the  facts  must  be  stated  which  constitute  the  alleged  cause 
for  removal,  and  must  be  supported  by  affidavit."  Nor  will  a 
Nor  can  one  be  motion  for  rcmoval  be  heard  in  a  collateral  proceed- 
coi'ia'terarpro-  ^^^?'  ^^^^  ^^^J  ^J  direct  action,^  upon  petition  and  cita- 
ceeding.  tion,^  the  scrvicc  of  which  is  a  jurisdictional  fact,  and 

1  Simpson  v.  Jones,  82  N.  C.  323.  18  S.  C.  396,  422,  citing  Stairly  v.  Rabe, 

2  Because  the  surrogate's  court  has  McMull.  Eq.  22.  To  similar  effect.  Car- 
ample  jurisdiction  to  adjust  equities:  penter  v.  Gray,  32  N,  J.  Eq.  692;  Mc- 
Becker  v.  Lawton,  4  Dem.  341.  Fadgen  v.  Council,  81  N.  C,  195- 

3  Elvvell  V.  Universalist  Church,  63  "  Neighbors  v.  Hamlin,  78  N  C,  42; 
Tex.  220.  Vail   v.   Givan,  55  Ind,  69;    Succession 

*  If  he  acts  6ona  _;?c?e:   Haight  y.  Bris-  of  Calhoun,  28  La.  An.  323;    White  v. 

bin,  96  N.  Y.  132.  Spaulding,  50  Mich.  22. 

6  Killam  v.  Costley,  52  Ala.  85.  8  Succession  of  Boyd,  12  La.  An.  611. 

6  Aldrich,  J.,  in  Witherspoon  i-.  Watts,  ^  Succession  of  Williams,  22  La.  An.  94. 


§  272  WHO   MAY   MOVE   FOR   REVOCATION.  581 

must  affirmatively  appear  from  the  record  to  give  validity  to  the 
order  of  removal.^     Having  appeared,  however,  he  cannot  subse- 
quently object  that  he  had  no  notice.^     The   motion  ^yj^^^^^^^ 
mav  be  made  by  a  creditor  for  the  removal  of  an  ad-  (icmaiid  the 

.  ,  •     ,     1     •  i^  J.-  c   removal. 

mmistrator  who  was  appointed  in  contravention  ot 
the  creditors'  right  within  the  time  during  which  they  have  pri- 
ority over  strangers,^  or  when  he  has  been  injured  by  the  mal- 
administration alleged;*  by  the  widow  of  the  decedent;^  by  a 
legatee  under  a  will,  when  the  judgment  declaring  it  null  has 
been  appealed  from ;  '^  by  the  assignee  of  a  devisee  or  legatee ;  ^ 
by  sureties  conceiving  themselves  in  danger  from  the  conduct 
of  the  administrator  ;S  and,  a  fortiori,  by  any  of  the  heirs  of  a 
solvent  estate.^  So  a  railroad  company,  against  whom  the  ad- 
ministrator has  brought  an  action  for  negligence  causing  the 
death  of  the  intestate,  may  test  the  validity  of  the  administra- 
tor's appointment,  because  a  judgment  obtained  upon  the  action 
brought  would  not  constitute  a  bar  to  a  further  suit  on  the  same 
cause  of  action  if  the  appointment  were  void,^*^  but  not  where  the 
appointment  is  only  voidable."  But  only  next  of  kin  may  con- 
test the  appointment  of  an  administrator  on  the  ground  that  he 
is  not  next  of  kin ;  ^^  and  where  a  stranger  and  a  next  of  kin 
applied  contemporaneously  for  letters,  and  the  stranger  was  ap- 
pointed upon  the  withdrawal  of  the  application  by  the  next  of 
kin,  he  has  no  right  to  ask  for  the  removal  subsequently.^^  One 
not  of  the  next  of  kin  has  no  right  to  ask  for  the  removal  of  the 
authority  of  the  public  administrator.^*  One  whose  appointment 
as  administrator  is  void  because  an  administrator  had  already 
been  appointed  by  a  court  whose  appointment  was  voidable  but 

1  People  I'.  Hartman,  2  Sweeny,  570,  2G  Ind.  477.  To  same  effect,  DonaMson 
579.  V.  Lewis,  7  Mo.  App.  403. 

2  Ferris  ?•.  Ferris,  89  III.  452.  ^^  Since   payment   to  tlie  de  facto  ad- 

3  Ward  r.  Cameron,  37  Ala.  G91.  niinistrator  will  protect:  Chicago,  13.  &  Q. 
*  Succession   of   Uecuir,   23   La.    An.     R.  R.  v.  Gould,  64  Iowa,  343. 

166.  ^-  Edmundson    v.    Roberts,    1    How. 

5  Evans  v.  Buchanan,  15  Ind.  438.  (Miss)  3-J2. 

^  Nowliouse  r.  Gale,  1  liedf.  217.  ^'^  Having  renounced  liis  right  by  im- 

•?  Yeaw  V.  Searle,  2  R.  L  1G4;  Susz  v.  plication  :  Cole  r.  Dial,  12  Tex.  100. 

Forst,  4  Dem.  316.  "  Estate   of   Carr,  25  Cal.   585.     Nor 

8  De  Lane's  Case,  2  Brev.  1G7  ;  Hard-  has  the  public  administrator  authority  to 
away  r.  Parham,  27  Miss.  103.  And  see,  provoke  the  removal  of  an  executor  or 
as  to  the  right  of  sureties  to  be  relieved,  administrator  :  Succession  of  Burnside, 
ante,  §  255.  34  La.  An.  728 ;  Tittman  v.  Edwards,  27 

9  i^eo-l  r   Crofker,  12  La.  An.  445  M...  App.  492. 
1"  Jeft'ersonville  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Swayne, 


582  REVOCATION   OF   LETTERS.  §  273 

not  void,  has  no  sucli  interest  in  the  estate  as  to  enable  him  to 
move  for  revocation  of  the  voidable  appointment.^  An  illegiti-*, 
mate  child  has  no  right  to  ask  for  the  removal  of  his  mother  as 
administratrix  on  the  ground  that  she  was  not  lawfully  married 
to  the  intestate,  because  he  would  have  no  right  to  administer.^ 
Where  a  non-resident  is  disqualified,  he  is  incompetent  to  petition 
for  the  revocation  of  letters  granted  to  others.^  The  creditor  of 
an  executrix,  but  not  of  the  testator,  has  no  interest  in  the  estate.* 
If  the  application  for  the  removal  is  on  the  ground  of  premature 
appointment,  it  must  be  made  within  such  time  after  the  party  in 
priority  learns  of  the  appointment  as  the  statute  gives  him  origi- 
nally after  the  death  of  the  intestate.^  The  judgment  of  the  pro- 
bate court  granting  letters  testamentary  cannot  be  collaterally 
assailed  by  a  motion  to  remove  the  executor  on  the  ground  that 
he  was  not  named  in  the  will.^  An  application,  made  in  proper 
time,  for  the  removal  of  an  administrator  appointed  upon  the 
widow's  relinquishment  within  the  time  allowed  to  the  widow  to 
qualify,  is  not  waived  by  a  subsequent  application  for  the  removal 
of  the  widow,  who  was  appointed  upon  the  resignation  of  the  ad- 
ministrator first  appointed." 

It  seems  that  any  person  interested  in  the  estate  may  prosecute 
for  the  removal  of  an  executor  or  administrator,  independently  of 
other  parties  having  a  like  interest,  unless  the  court  should  re- 
quire such  other  parties  to  be  brought  in.^ 

§  273.  Resignation  of  Executors  and  Administrators.  —  At  the 
common  law,  any  act  of  intermeddling  with  the  effects  of  an 
Executor  not  Gstatc  by  the  person  nominated  as  executor  bound  him 
allowed  to  re-     j^g  q^^  acccptancc  of  the  executorship,  and  he  could 

sign  at  com-  '■  _  '■ 

mon  law.  not  Subsequently  renounce  his  character  as  executor,^ 

nor  resign  the  trust. ^^  So  with  regard  to  the  office  of  administra- 
Nor  an  admin-  tor  ;  the  probatc  court  has  no  power  to  accept  the 
istrator.  resignation  of  an  administrator  once  duly  appointed 

and  qualified,  without  statutory  authorization.^^     It  was  so  held  in 

1  Coltart  V.  Allen,  40  Ala.  155.  with   a   citation  of  English  authorities  ; 

2  Myatt  V.  Myatt,  U  111.  473.  ante,  §  234. 

3  Frick's  Appeal,  114  Pa.  St.  29.  i"  Mitchell  v.  Adams,  1  Ired.  L.  298; 
*  Carroll  v.  Huie,  21  La.  An.  561.  Haigood  v.  Wells,   1    Hill,  Ch.   59,   61  ; 

5  Edwards  v.  Bruce,  8  Md.  .387.  Washington  v.  Blount,  8  Ired.  Eq.  258, 

6  Grant  v.  Spann,  34  Miss.  294.  256;  In  re  Mussault,  T.  U.  P.  Charlt.  259  ; 
■?  Curtis  V.  Burt,  34  Ala.  729.  Driver  v.  Riddle,  8  Port.  343  ;  Thomason 

8  Estate  of  Pike,  45  Wis.  391.  v.  Blackwell,  5  St.  &  P.  181. 

9  Sears  v.  Dillingham,  12  Mass.  358,         "  Elinn  v.  Chase,  4  Denio,  85,90.     In 


§  273  RESIGNATION   OF   EXECUTORS.  583 

Wisconsin  1  before  the  autliority  was  given  by  statute.^  In  Illi- 
n(jis  iind  Nebraska,  it  was  held  that,  wliilc  there  was  no  law 
allowing  an  administrator  to  resign,  yet  the  acceptance  of  his 
resignation  by  the  probate  conrt  amounts  to  a  revocation  of  his 
authority  ;  ^  and  in  Minnesota  it  is  said  that  a  resignation  tendered 
might  be  a  good  ground  for  removal,  and,  if  accepted  by  the  court 
and  entered  in  the  form  of  an  order  in  the  record,  might  be  taken 
to  have  the  effect  of  a  removal.* 

The  reservations  against  the  validity  of  the  resignation  of  exec- 
utors and  administrators  will  be  foimd,  in  most  of  the  cases  above 
cited,  to  be  directed  against  a  liability  incurred,  generally  to  ac- 
count, etc. ;  for  it  would  be  absurd  to  permit  one  wlio  has  wasted 
or  converted  the  estate,  or  in  any  way  made  himself  liable  to 
creditors,  legatees,  or  distributees,  to  escape  responsibility  by  res- 
ignation,'^ or  by  declaring  his  possession  that  of  a  legatee,  and 
not  of  the  executor.^  It  is  now  generally  provided  by  ^^^^  j^  .^^^^^^^^ 
statute  in  the  several  States,  that  for  reasons  deemed  ^y  statute  in 

most  otiiLtis* 

sufficient  by  the  probate  court  it  may  accept  the  resig- 
nation of  an  executor  or  administrator,  and  relieve  him,  after  set- 
tlement of  his  account,  from  the  trust.'     It  was  held  in  Illinois  ^ 
and  in  Massachusetts,  in  the   absence  of  a  statute   authorizing 
resignation,  that,  wliere  the  interest  of  the  estate  collided  with 

the  case  of  Comstock  r.  Crawford,  3  Wall.  *  Rumrill   v.  First  National  Bank,  28 

39;),  401,  Mr.  Justice  Field  says:  "  Tlie  Minn.  202  ;  followed  in  Balch  v.  Hooper, 

power  to  accept  tlie  resignation  and  make  32  Minn.  158. 

the  second  appointment,  under  the  circum-  '"  It  was  held  in  California,  that  the 
stances  of  this  case,  were  necessary  inci-  statute  allowinjr  an  administrator  to  re- 
dents  of  the  power  to  grant  letters  of  ad-  sign  after  settling  ids  accounts  excluded 
ministration  in  the  first  instance";  the  his  right  to  do  so  without  having  settled  : 
circumstances  alluded  to  being  that  the  Haynes  v.  Meeks,  10  Cal.  110.  So  in 
first  administrator  never  took  possession  Driver  v.  Riddle,  supra,  the  statute  of  Ala- 
of  tlie  effects,  nor  attempted  to  exercise  bama  is  alluded  to  as  granting  the  right 
any  control  over  them,  and  informed  the  to  resign,  expressly  providing,  however, 
probate  court  that  he  could  not  act.  This  the  continuing  liability  of  the  adminis- 
case  would  not  seem,  therefore,  to  go  to  trator  and  his  sureties  for  any  assets  not 
the  extent  of  establishing  the  power  of  duly  accounted  for.  To  same  effect, 
a  probate  court  to  accept  the  resignation  Coleman  v.  Kaynor,  3  Coldw.  25,  29; 
of  an  administrator  appointed  and  quali-  where  the  resignation  is  accepted  pend- 
fied,  and  who  had  entered  upon  the  dis-  ing  the  settlement  of  his  accounts,  the 
charge  of  his  duties,  without  statutory  court  may  nevertheless  settle  his  ac- 
authority  to  that  end.  counts,  and  hear  and  determine  excep- 

1  Sitzman   v.  Pacquette,  13  Wis.  291,  tions   thereto,  and  ascertain  the  amount 
306.  due  from  him,  as  if  he  had  not  resigned: 

2  At  least  by  implication  :    Rev.   St.  Slagle  r.  Entrekin,  44  Oh.  St.  637,  639. 
1878  §  3804.  ^  I^ird  v.  Jones,  5  La.  An.  643,  645. 

3  Vlarsh  V.  The  People,  15  111.  284,  286 ;  ^  Schoul.  Ex.  §  Vo(\ 
Trumble  v.  Williams,  18  Neb.  144,  148.  ^  Marsh  v.  The  People,  supra. 


584  REVOCATION    OF   LETTERS.  §  274 

that  of  the  executor,  tlie  acceptance  of  the  resignation  of  the  latter 
by  the  probate  court  constitutes  an  order  of  removal  on  the  ground 
of  "  unsuitableness."  ^  So  in  Missouri  the  duty  of  the  adminis- 
trator of  two  estates,  one  of  which  it  was  contended  was  indebted 
to  the  other,  to  resign  one  of  them,  was  indicated  by  the  Supreme 
Court.^  In  Alabama,  it  was  ruled  that,  where  an  administrator 
accepted  the  office  of  probate  judge,  he  did  not  thereby  vacate  his 
office  as  administrator ;  ^  but  the  propriety  of  a  voluntary  resigna- 
tion by  the  judge  of  his  previous  office  of  administrator  was  not 
questioned. 

The  right  to  resign  is  not,  however,  an  absolute  or  arbitrary 
right ;  it  can  only  be  accorded  upon  proof  of  circumstances  show- 
Right  to  resign  "ig  it  to  bc  cousistcnt  With  the  interests  of  the  estate.* 
is  not  absolute,  jjencc  the  parties  interested  in  the  estate  should  have 
notice  of  the  intended  resignation,  either  by  publication  or  other- 
wise. The  method  of  notice  is  generally  provided  by  statute ; '" 
and  it  is  held  in  Georgia,  that,  if  not  complied  with,  the  order 
granting  a  discharge  is  void  ;  ^  and  so  in  New  Jersey."^ 

§  274.  Consequences  of  the  Revocation  of  Letters. — The  effect 
of  the  revocation  of  letters  testamentary  and  of  administration, 
and  of  the  resignation  of  the  executor  or  administrator,  is  neces- 

1  Whore,   for   instance,    the    executor  *  In  New  York  it  is  held  that  an  alle- 

sliows  that  the  prosecution   of    his    per-  gation  that  tlie   petitioner   "  is  too  busy 

sonal  claims  against   the   estate  conflict  with    her  own   private   matters,   and   no 

with  his  duties  as  executor:   Tiiayer  v.  longer   desires    to  he  busied"  with   her 

Homer,  11  Met.  (Mass  )  104.  trust,  is  not  a  "sufficient  reason"  to  au- 

■■^  State    r.   Bidlingmaier,  26   Mo.  483,  thorize    the   resignation  of  an  executrix, 

affirmed  in  81  Mo.  9.5.  under  tlie  statute:  Baier  v.  Baier,  4  Dem. 

3  Whitworth  v.   Oliver,    39   Ala.  286,  16'2.     An  executor,  although  he  may  re- 

290.     The  question  arose  in  a  suit  against  sign,  cannot  retract  a  renunciation  :  Mat- 

the  administrator's  sureties,  and  for  the  ter  of  Suaroz,  3  Dem.  lt)4. 

furtherance  of  justice  in  that  case  it  may  ^  In  Missouri,  by  publication  in  a  news- 

not  have  been  necessary  to  appoint  an  paper  for  four  consecutive  weeks  before 

administrator  de  boitis  non.     But  for  the  the  beginning  of  the  term  at  which  the 

ordinary  purposes  of  administration  the  application  is  to  be  made  :  Rev.  St.  1879, 

election  of  an  administrator  to  the  office  §  44. 

of  judge  of  probate  with  jurisdiction  over  '^  Head  v.  Bridges,  67    Ga.   227,  232, 

the   estate  admini^^tered  by  him,  seems  Speer,  J.,  dissenting,  2.39,  on  the  ground 

to    be    highly    suggestive    of    the    pro-  that  there  was  no  proof  in  the  record  that 

priety    of    resignation    or    removal    as  there  had  been  no  service,  in  the  absence 

administrator.      A   litigant  claiming   ad-  of  which  the  recital  of  service  must  be 

versely   to    the   adminhtrator   would    be  deetned  conclusive.     Also  Barnes  i-.  Un- 

at  some  disadvantage  before  tlie  judge,  derwood,  54  Ga.  87. 

who  would  so  much  more  readily  under-  '^  Vail  v.  Male,  37  N.  J.  Eq.  521,  the 
stand  and  appreciate  the  force  of  the  rule  of  court  requiring  at  least  thirty 
administrator's  position  than  that  of  his  days'  notice,  unless  the  court  order  other- 
opponent,  wise. 


§  274       CONSEQUENCES  OF  THE  REVOCATION.  585 

sarily  mentioned  in  connection  with  the  subject  of  jurisdiction  of 
probate  courts,^  executors  de  son  tort^  and  of  the  powers  and 
duties  of  administrators  de  bonis  non;^  and  on  several  other 
occasions  the  principle  upon  which  the  validity  of  the  mesne  acts 
of  an  executor  or  administrator  after  appointment  and  before 
revocation  depends,  has  been  discussed.*  It  may  nevertheless 
be  of  utility  to  add,  in  this  connection,  some  considerations  on  this 
subject,  although,  perhaps,  to  some  extent  in  recapitulation  of 
what  has  been  said  before. 

Mr.  Williams,  in  his  great  treatise  on  Executors  and  Adminis- 
trators, says  on  this  subject,  that  the  first  important  distinction  to 
be  considered  is  between  grants  which  are  void,  and  ,,.  ..    ,.     , 

o  '  Distinction  be- 

such  as  arc  merely  voidable,  —  the  mesne  acts  of  an  twuenactsofan 

.     .  .        adinmistrator 

executor  or  administrator  between  the  grant  and  its  under  void, 
revocation  being,  in  the  former  case,  of  no  validity,  under  voida- 
The  necessity  of  this  rule  is  self-evident :  a  void  grant     ^  etter>. 
is  no  grant,  and  acts  depending  for  tlieir  validity  upon  official 
authority  in  the  actor  are  wholly  void  in  the  absence  of  such  au- 
thority.    So  far,  then,  as  the  original  appointment  of  an  executor 
was  made  by  a  court  having  no  power  to  make  such  an  appoint- 
ment,—  whether  for  want  of  jurisdiction  generally  or  in  the  par- 
ticular case  that  may  be  in  question,  —  all  that  the  person  so 
appointed  has  done  under  color  of  his  appointment  must  be  treated 
precisely  as  if  done  by  a  stranger.     The  revocation  in  such  case 
amounts  simply  to  an  official  declaration  of  the  nullity  of  what 
has  l)een  done,  "  for  the  sake  of  correcting  the  records  and  pre- 
venting further  mischief."  ^ 

Mr.  Williams  then  proceeds  to  cite  and  quote  from  a  number 
of  English  cases,  showing  that  many  sucli  acts  were  held  void 
under  circumstances  which  seem  to  make  the  ruling  incompatible 
with  principles  of  strict  justice  and  wise  policy ;  thus  all  acts  per- 
formed by  an  administrator  who  obtained  letters  on  the  conceal- 
ment of  a  will,^  or  by  one  appointed  before  the  executor  had 
renounced,"  or  by  an  executor  who  obtained  probate,  knowing 

1  Ante,  ch.  xvi.  5  Schoul.  Ex.  §  160. 

^  Ch.  xxi.  6  Wins.   Ex.    [586].   citinsr   Abram    v. 

3  Ante,  §  179.  Cunningham,  2  Lev.  182 ;  Graysbrook  v. 

*  See  as  to  the  validity  of  the  admin-  Fox,  Plowd.  276. 
istration  on  the  estate  of  a  person  not  "  Abram  v.  Cunningham,  supra :  Bax- 

actually    dead,    ante,    §§    208-211:    also  ter  and  Bale's  Case,  1  Leon.  90;  and  see 

ante,  §  266.  Throckmorton  v.  Hobby,  1  Brownl.  51. 


586  REVOCATION   OP   LETTERS.  §  274 

that  there  was  a  later  will  by  the  same  testator,^  have  been  held 
void,  so  that  the  later  appointed  executor  or  administrator  was 
allowed  to  maintain  trover  or  detinue  to  recover  property  from 
one  who  had  purcliased  of  the  former  appointee.^  The  justice  and 
wisdom  of  this  principle  would  seem  to  be  limited  to  such  persons 
as  acted  with  knowledge  or  notice  of  the  invalidity  of  the  author- 
ity of  the  executor  or  administrator.  But  to  visit  upon  one  who 
has  no  means  of  detecting  it  the  consequences  of  a  fraud  practised 
upon  the  court  granting  letters,  or  of  a  mistake  in  the  effect  of 
the  evidence  produced  before  it,  and  who  relies  upon  the  validity 
of  the  unreversed  decrees  and  judgments  of  a  court  created  by  the 
law  for  the  purpose  of  rendering  them,  seems  a  mockery  of  justice 
and  the  conversion  of  law  into  a  snare.  As  if  in  melioration  of 
the  harshness,  not  to  say  injustice,  of  the  rule  applied  in  these 
cases,  the  privilege  accorded  to  executors  de  son  tort  to  recoup, 
in  damages,  payments  made  in  due  course  of  administration,  is 
extended  to  the  vendees  of  an  executor  or  administrator  under 
void  letters.^  But  this  privilege  does  not  extend  to  an  executor 
knovvMngly  acting  under  a  void  probate ;  in  the  case  of  Woolley 
V.  Clark,"^  such  an  executor  was  not  allowed  to  give  evidence 
of  the  administration  of  assets.  In  this  case,  the  distinction  is 
broadly  drawn  between  one  who  acts  with  knowledge  or  notice  of 
the  defect  in  the  authority,  and  one  who  has  no  such  notice: 
"  Where  a  party  obtains  a  judgment  irregularly,  which  is  after- 
ward set  aside  for  irregularity,  he  is  not  justified  in  acting  under 
it ;  but  the  sheriff  is  justified."  And  this  view  seems  to  be  recog- 
nized in  many  English  cases,  even  in  that  in  which  Justices  Ash- 
hurst  and  Buller  uttered  the  unfortunate  dictum,  that  the  case 
of  a  probate  of  a  supposed  will  during  the  life  of  a  party  may 
be  distinguished  from  a  case  where  a  party  acts  under  the  au- 
thority of  a  court  of  law.^     "  Every  person  is  bound  to  pay  defer- 

1  Woolley  V.  Clark,  5  B.  &  Aid.  744.         sale  would   have  been  indefeasible   for- 

2  Or  he  might  bring  assumpsit  for  the     ever." 

proceeds,    waiving  the  tort  and  treating  *  5  B.  &  Aid.  744. 

the  sale  as  if  made  with  his  consent  for  ^  Wiiich,  being  repeated  a  few  years 

his  use  :  Wms.  Ex.  [587].  afterward  by  Chief  Justice  Marshall,  in 

3  Wms.  Ex.  1588],  citing  Graysbrook  Griffith  v.  Frazier,  8  Cr.  9,  gave  rise  to  a 
V.  Fox,  supra,  in  which  "  it  was  laid  number  of  American  decisions  holding 
down  by  the  court,  that  if  the  sale  had  the  grant  of  letters  and  all  acts  resting  for 
been  made  to  discharge  funeral  expenses  their  validity  upon  tiiem  void,  if  itsubse- 
or  debts,  wluch  the  executor  or  admin-  quently  appeared  that  the  person  adjudl- 
istrator    was    compellable    to    pay,    the  cated  to  be  dead  was  not  in  reality  dead. 


§  274        CONSEQUENCES  OF  THE  REVOCATION.  587 

encc  to  a  judicial  act  of  a  court  having  competent  jurisdiction," 
says  Justice  Ashhurst.^  And  Justice  Buller :  "  I  am  most  clearly 
of  oi)ini()n  that  it  [probate  of  a  will]  is  a  judicial  act ;  for  the 
ecclesiastical  court  may  hoar  and  examine  the  parties  on  the 
difl'ercnt  sides  whether  a  will  be  or  be  not  properly  made ;  that 
is  the  only  court  that  can  pronounce  whether  or  not  the  will  be 
good.  And  the  courts  of  common  law  have  no  jurisdiction  over 
the  subject."  Secondly,  "  The  probate  is  conclusive  till  it  he 
repealed;  and  no  court  of  common  law  can  admit  evidence  to 
impeach  it."  ^  It  was  held  in  the  early  reign  of  Queen  p]lizabeth, 
that  a  sale  or  gift  by  an  administrator,  whose  authority  was  sub- 
sequently vacated,  stood  unaffected  thereby. ^ 

The  cases  giving  rise  to  the  application  of  this  principle  in 
America  turn  mostly  upon  the  question  of  the  residence  of  the 
decedent  at  the  time  of  his  death  ;  for  it  was  formerly  held  in 
many  States,  that  the  probate  court  has  no  jurisdiction  to  grant 
probate  or  letters  unless  the  decedent  died  an  inhabitant  of  the 
county,  or  leaving  property  therein,  and  that  letters  granted  where 
such  was  not  the  fact,  and  all  acts  done  upon  the  authority  there- 
of, are  void.  This  doctrine  is  now  very  generally  giving  way  to 
the  safer  one  of  holding  them  voidable,  but  good  until  revoked.* 
It  is  so  provided  by  statute  in  England,^  and  in  some  of  the 
American  States,  as  Massachusetts.^ 

If  the  grant  is  only  voidable,  another  distinction  is  taken  be- 
tween a  proceeding  by  citation  to  revoke  the  letters  granted,  and 
an  appeal  from  the  judgment  of  the  court  of  probate.  Distinction  be- 

,  .    1      .       ,    1  ,  c  .  -       mi        tween  citation 

which  IS  taken  to  reverse  a  former  sentence.'      ine  to  revoiie  a 
appeal  suspends,  until  its  termination,  the  powers  of  audapp^efr^' 
the  person  against  whose  appointment  it  is  taken,  and  gra",;'!"'^""^^"'^ 
all  of  his  intermediate  acts  arc  ineffectual.     If  any-  letters. 
thing  is  necessary  to  be  done  for  the  estate  during  the  prosecution 

1  Allen  I'.  Dundas,  3  T.  R.  125,  129.  ute  "  :    Packman's   Case,  6  Co.   10.     To 
-  Ibid.,  pp.  130,  131,  citing  Kerrick  v.      tiie   same   effect,    Semine   v.  Semine,  2 

Bransby,  2  Eq.  Cas.  Abr.  421,  pi.  4.  Lev.  90. 

2  "  Forasmuch  as  tlie  first  administra-  ■*  See  ante,  §  145.  But  see  the  re- 
tor  liad  the  absolute  property  of  the  cent  case  of  People's  Savintis  Bank  i-. 
goods  in  him,  he  might  give  them  to  Wilcox,  15  R.  I.  258,  holding  such  let- 
whom   he   pleased.     And    although    the  ters  void. 

letters  of    administration   be   afterwards  ^  20  &  21  Vict.  c.  77,  §  77. 

countermanded    and    revoked,   yet   that  «  Pub.  St.  1882,  ch.  132,  §  15;  St.  1873, 

cannot  defeat  tlie  gift.     But  if  the  gift  c.  253,  §§  1-3. 
be  by  covin,  it  shall  be  void  by  the  stat-  '   Wms.  Ex.  [588]. 


588  REVOCATION   OF   LETTERS.  §  274 

of  the  appeal,  it  is  within  the  power  of  the  probate  court  to  appoint 
an  administrator  penderite  lite.}  The  bond  of  an  executor  is  not 
vacated,  but  only  suspended,  by  the  appeal  from  the  order  appoint- 
ing him.2  Where  an  oi'der  of  revocation  is  appealed  from,  it  is 
held  in  some  States  that  the  appeal  suspends  the  order  of  revoca- 
tion, and  leaves  the  letters  in  full  force  and  effect ;  ^  while  else- 
where the  authority  of  the  executor  pending  the  appeal  is  denied.* 
But  on  an  appeal  from  the  order  granting  letters,  such  letters 
cannot  be  granted  pending  the  appeal.^ 

A  revocation  upon  citation,  where  the  grant  of  letters  was  void- 
able only,  leaves  all  lawful  acts  done  by  the  first  administrator 
valid  and  binding,  as  though  his  authority  had  not  been  ques- 
tioned ;  all  sales  of  real  or  personal  property  made  lawfully  by 
the  executor  or  administrator,  and  with  good  faith  on  the  part 
of  the  purchaser,  are  and  shall  remain  valid  and  effectual,  and 
the  payment  to  him  of  a  debt  to  the  estate  will  be  a  legal  dis- 
charge to  the  debtor.  This  is  self-evident,  and  it  would  be  a  waste 
of  time  and  space  to  examine  the  very  numerous  cases  so  holding.^ 
Beside  the  cases  bearing  upon  this  subject  which  are  cited  ante,  in 
connection  with  the  several  subjects  mentioned  in  the  opening  of 
this  section,  there  will  be  occasion  to  cite  others,  in  connection 
"with  the  relation  which  several  executors  or  administrators  of  the 
same  estate  bear  to  each  other,  which  also  touch  upon  the  effect 
of  revocation  and  resignation. 

It  may  be  mentioned,  however,  that  since  the  removed  executor 
or  administrator  has  no  further  authority  to  act,  or  bind  the  estate, 
he  cannot  be  held  liable  for  any  act  affecting  the  estate  after  his 
removal.'^  To  a  suit  pending  against  him  at  the  time  of  his  re- 
moval he  may  plead  the  revocation  of  his  authority  in  bar,^  at 
least  if  he  has  settled  his  account ;  ^  and  such  suit  must  be  further 

1  Fletcher  v.  Fletcher,  29  Vt.  98,  102;  ^  state  r.  Williams,  supra;  Offutt  v^ 
Arnold  v.  Sabin,  4  Cush.  46.  Gott,  12  Gill  &  J.  385.     See  as  to  the  ef- 

2  Hence,  if   the  original  grant  is  af-  feet  of  an  appeal,  post,  §§  547  et  seq. 
firmed  on  appeal,  no  new  bond  need  be  ^  See    Wms.    Ex.    [590],   and   list   of 
given  by  the  executor :  Dunham  y.  ])un-  American   cases   under  note    (x^)  ;    also 
ham,  16  Gray,  577.  [549],  note  (d)  ;  3  Redf.  on  Wills,  120,  pi. 

^  So  in  Maryland :  State  i'.  Williams,  7,  and  notes  ;  Schoul.  Ex.  §  160. 

9    Gill,   172  ;    Mississippi :    Miiirhead    v.  ">  Marsh  i:  The  People,  15  111.  284. 

Muirhead,  8  Sm.  &  M.  211;  Pennsylva-  ^  Morrison   v.   Cones,   7  Blackf.   593; 

nia:  Shauffler  v.  Stoever,  4  S.  &  R.  202.  Broach   r.  Wnlker,   2    Ga.   428;    Hall  v. 

*  So  in  Georgia:  Thompson  v.  Knight,  Pearman,  20  Tex.  168. 

23   Ga.   399  ;    Louisiana :   Succession  of  ^  Cogburn  v.  McQueen,  46  Ala.  551, 

Townsend,  37  La.  An.  408.  565. 


§  274  CONSEQUENCES   OF   THE   REVOCATION.  589 

prosecuted  in  the  name  of  a  new  representative  of  tlie  estate,  or 
be  dismissed.^  "  After  revocation,  removal,  or  resignation,  the 
former  executor  or  administrator  cannot  complete  a  sale  which  he 
has  been  negotiating  on  behalf  of  the  estate,-  nor  collect  assets  "  ;  ^ 
but  the  court  has  jurisdiction  to  settle  his  accounts,  as  though  he 
were  still  in  office.* 

It  is  held  in  New  York  tliat  an  executor,  whose  letters  havb 
been  revoked  on  the  ground  of  having  been  adjudged  Cessation  of 

CflHSG  of  I'CVO— 

a  lunatic,  is  not  entitled  to  rehabilitation  in  office  on  cation  does  not 
judicial  restoration  to  sanity.     The  principle  involved 
extends  equally  to  removals  for  any  cause.^ 


rehabilitate  the 

person 

removed. 


1  Per  Bell,  J.,  in  Wiggin  v.  Plumer,  ^  Ibid. ;    Stubblefield   v-  MoKaven,  5 
31  N.  H.  251,  2GG ;  National  Bank  v.  Stan-  Sm.  &  M.  130. 

ton,  IIG  Mass.  435  ;   Brown   v.  Pender-  *  Casoni  v.  Jerome,  58  N.  Y.  315,  322  ; 

gast,  7  Allen,  427.  Slagle  v.  Entrekin,  44  Ohio  St.  637,  639; 

2  Schoul.  E.v.  §  IGO,  citing  Owens  v.  In  re  Hood,  104  N.  Y.  103;  74  Cal.  536. 
Cowan,  7  B.  Mon.  152.  ^  Matter  of  Dearing,  4  Dem.  81. 


PART  THIRD. 

OF  THE  PROPERTY  TO  WHICH  THE  TITLE  OF  EXECU- 
TORS AND  ADMINISTRATORS  EXTENDS. 


There  is  no  occasion  to  repeat  citation  of  authorities  on  the 

proposition,  that,  at  common  law  and  in  all  the  States,  all  mere 

personal  property,  including  chattels  real,  goes  to  the 

All  personal         ^  ii.'  o  cj 

property  goes     exccutor  of  a  tcstator,  and  to  the  administrator  or 

to  the  executor  ,.         ,  ,  •  i. 

nradminis-  an  mtestato,  or  ot  a  testator  m  case  no  executor  ac- 
*'^'°'^'  cepts  or  qualifies.     The  single  exception  that  may  be 

mentioned  is,  that  by  special  custom  heirlooms  go  to  the  heir  or 
devisee,  and,  although  they  are  mere  chattels,  cannot  be  devised 
apart  from  the  realty.^ 

Heirlooms  in  the  strict  sense  are  said  to  be  rarc,^  and  seem  not 
to  be  recognized  in  America  ;3  they  are,  according  to  the  ancient 
Except  heir-  authorities,  such  goods  and  chattels  as,  though  not 
looms.  -j^  their  nature  heritable,  have  a  heritable   character 

impressed  upon  thcm,^  although  Blackstone  describes  them  as 
generally  being  such  things  as  cannot  be  taken  away  without 
damaging  or  dismembering  the  freehold.^  This  subject  is  not  of 
sufficient  importance  to  justify  further  consideration  here ;  the 
law  as  to  the  cognate  subject  of  fixtures  not  severable  from  the 
inheritance  will  be  treated  hereinafter.^ 

Family  portraits  specifically  bequeathed  have  been  held  to  con- 
Family  por-  stitute  no  part  of  the  testator's  personal  estate,  and 
traits.  ^|-jj^|.  therefore  the  administrator  cum  testamento   an- 

nexo  has  no  right  to  them.'     So  an  administrator  has  no  property 

1  2  Blackst.  *429;  1  Schouler  on  Per-  '"  2  Blackst.  *427.  The  crown  jewels 
sonal  Property,  118.  of  England  are  mentioned  as  being  lieir- 

2  Rap.  &  L.  Law  Diet.  "  Heirlooms  "  looms  descendible  to  the  next  successor  : 

3  1  Washb.  R.  Prop.,  oh.  1,  pi.  16.  Wms.  Ex.  [722]. 

4  Byng  V.  Byng,  10  H.  L.  Cas.  171, 183.  ^  Post,  §§  280  et  seq. 

See  authorities  in  Wms.  Ex.  [721].  "^  Estate  of  Mosely,  12  Phila.  50. 


HEIRLOOMS:    FAMILY   PORTRAITS.  591 

in  the  cadaver  of  his  intestate,  and  cannot  maintain  cariavor  of  the 
an  action  for  its  wilful  and  neLili,^-cnt  mutilation;  but  '''■^'^^«'^'^'- 
may  sue  for  injury  to  the  wearing  ap[)arcl  of  the  deceased.^  In 
a  case  arising  in  Rhode  Island,^  Potter,  J.  reviews  the  Roman, 
canon,  and  English  ecclesiastical  law,  and  reaches  the  conclusion, 
that,  while  a  dead  body  is  not  property  in  the  strict  sense  of  the 
common  law,  yet  the  relatives  have  rights  over  it  which  courts 
will  protect.^  In  Indiana  the  proposition  is  laid  down,  that  the 
bodies  of  the  dead  belong  to  the  surviving  relations  as  property.* 
So  in  Pennsylvania.^ 

1  Griffith  V.  Railroad,  23  S.  C.  25.  *  Bogert  v.  Indianapolis,  13  Ind.  134, 

'^  Pierce  v.  Proprietors,  10  R.  I.  ii27.  138. 

8  Ibid.,  pp.  235,   239.     See  a  learned  ^  Wynkoop  v.  Wynkoop,  42  Pa.  St. 

dissertation  on  this  subject  in  a  note  to  293,  302  (excluding  the  right  of  the  ad- 

the  referee's  report    in    the    Matter   of  niinistratrix  and  wife). 
Opening  Beekman  Street,  by  Surrogate 
Bradford,  appended  to  4  Bradf.  p.  503. 


592  PROPERTY   IN   POSSESSION.  §  275 


CHAPTER   XXX. 

OP   PROPERTY   IN   POSSESSION. 

§  275.  Joint  and  Partnership  Property.  —  Since  it  was  found 
most  convenient  to  consider  the  law  affecting  tlie  estates  of  dc- 
Partnership  ccascd  partners  in  connection  with  the  effect  produced 
property.  ^y.  |-|-^g  death  of  a  member  of  a  partnership,  it  is  not 

necessary  to  mention  the  subject  here  further  than  to  refer  to  the 
chapter  where  it  is  treated.^ 

It  is  one  of  the  characteristics  of  joint  ownership  of  property, 
At  law,  exec-     personal  as  well  as  real,  that,  when  one  of  the  joint 

utors  and  ad-  ,.,...  ,  .  .       ,  i 

ministiators  owncrs  dics,  liis  mtcrcst  passes  at  once  to  the  survivor 
ilf property^  0^'  survivors,  cxcluding  the  personal  representatives  as 
held  in  joint       ^g||  ^^g  i^q{yq  and  distributees  from  anv  title  therein.^ 

ownership, 

but  ma  have  ^^^^  ^^  equity,  the  owncrs  of  a  mortgage  made  to  sev- 
in  equity.  qyq\  mortgagees  jointly  were   held   to  be  owners  in 

common  of  the  money  secured  thereby,  the  right  to  which,  on  the 
death  of  one  of  them,  passes  to  his  executor  or  administrator.^ 
From  this  principle  Mr.  Williams  deduces  the  rule  that  at  law  the 
right  of  a  joint  owner  passes,  on  his  death,  to  the  survivor  or 
survivors,*  but  in  equity  to  his  executor  or  administrator.^ 

§  276.  Real  Estate.  —  There  will  be  occasion  hereafter,  in  con- 
nection with  the  law  regulating  the  liability  and  powers  of  execu- 
tors and  administrators  in  respect  of  real  estate,^  as  well  as  in 
treating  of  the  sale  of  real  estate  for  the  payment  of  debts,'''  to 
dwell  upon  the  circumstances  under  wdiich  real  estate  will  pass  to 
Real  estaie  ^hc  personal  representative  for  administration.  It  will 
passes  directly    ^^  sufficient,  therefore,  to  mention  in  this  connection 

to  heirs  and  '  ' 

devisees.  the  general  rule,  that  in  the  absence  of  statutory  pro- 

visions the  real  estate,  or  lands,  tenements,  and  hereditaments,  of 
a  deceased  person,  go  directly  to  the  heirs  or  devisees.^     Excep- 

1  Ante,  §§  123  ft  seq.  6  Post,  §§  337  et  seg. 

2  1  Schoiil.  Pers.  Pr.  188.  "  Post,  §§  463  et  seq. 

8  Vickers  v.  Cowell,  1  Beav.  629.  »  Swinb.,  pt.  6,  sec.  3,  pi.  5  ;  3  Redf.  on 

*  Wms.  Ex.  [650].  Wills,  134,  pi.  7  ;  Schoul.  Ex.  §  212. 

5  Wms.  Ex.  [1900]. 


§  277  CHATTELS   REAL.  593 

tiuns  to  this  rule  arc  enacted  in  several  States  whose  ry  , 
statutes   direct   that  realty  and   personalty  are  alike  wise  directed 

,..  .  \  .  (•     ^  1  ^y  statute, 

subject  to  administration;'  in  most  oi  them  real  estate 
is  likewise  subject  to  be  administered  in  case  it  be-  for  the  p.-u- 
comes  necessaiy,  from  the  lack  of  sufficient  personalty,  ""^"^  "^  '^*'^^^' 
to  pay  the  decedent's  debts,  so  that  in  these  States  the  realty  de- 
scends to  the  heir  or  devisee  subject  to  a  naked  power  to  be  sold 
on  the  happening  of  the  contingency  named.^     It  is  „r  under  a 
also  to  be  mentioned  here,  that  executors,  and  nnder  ^^"ci'to".  {|[f 
some  circumstances  administrators  eiun  testamento  cm-  ■*^'"- 
nexo,  are  sometimes  vested  by  will  with  power  to  dispose  of  real 
estate.     In  this  respect  it  is  sometimes  difficult  to  decide  whether 
the  devise  is  to  the  executor,  or  to  the  devisee  with  a  naked  i)ower 
in  the  executor.     Judge  McCreary  has  adopted,  on  this  point,  the 
rule  as  laid  down  by  Judge  Redfield :  ^  "It  is  said  the  Devise  to  sell 
devise  of  the  land  to  the  executors  to  sell  passes  the  passes  the  title; 
title ;  but  a  devise  that  executors  may  sell,  or  shall  Jjirecl'i^^^or^ 
sell   lands,  or  that  they  may  or  shall  be  sold  bv  the  authorizing  of 

•'  •/  -  a  sale  confers 

executors,  gives  them  only  a  naked  power  of  sale."  *  »  naked  power. 
The  power  to  sell  may  be  granted  by  implication,^  where,  and  to 
the  extent  to  which,  it  is  necessary  to  carry  out  the 

Powor  to  sell 

testator's  intention,*"  but  will  not  bo  implied  from  the  may  be  t^ianted 
mere  fact  that  lands  are  charged  with  the  payment  of  ^''  '"'P^'^-"''""- 
debts,"  or  that  distribution  is  to  be  made  after  the  executor's  death.^ 
§  277.    Chattels  Real,  which,  as  already  remarked,  go  to  the  ex- 
ecutor or  administrator,  include  all  leases  of  lands  or  chattels  real 
tenements  for  a  definite  space  of  time,  measured  by  jea!es  fo'l-'a 
years,  months,  or  days,  or  until  a  day  named  ;^  also  time  certain; 
estates  at  will,  by  sufferance,  and,  generally,  any  estate  estates  at 
in  lands  not  amounting  to  a  freehold. '"^    So  the  residue  suWrance.'^ 

t  These  States  are  enumerated, /los^  '^  Fox's  Will.  52  N.  Y.  5-30,  536 ;  Owen 

§  337.  V.  Ellis,  64  Mo.  77. 

2  Tills  subject  is  fully  discussed,  post,  ^  Waller  v.  Logan,  5  B.  Mon.  515,  522. 
§§468r/.se7.  3  2  Kent  Com.  *342 ;  Schee  v.  Wi^e- 

3  3  Kedf.  on  Wills,  1.37,  pi.  2,  note  (1),  man,  79  Ind.  389  ;  Lewis  r.  Rin^o,  3  A.  K. 
citing  Sugd.  on  Powers,  8th  ed  ,  112,  an  Marsh.  247  ;  INIurdock  i-.  Katcliff,  7  Ohio, 
authority  also  cited  by  Williams,  Ex.  119;  Payne  v.  Harris,  3  Strobh.  Eq. -30  ; 
[6-54],  who  reaches  the  same  conclusion.  (iutzweiler  r.  Lackmann,  39  Mo.  91,  97  ; 

<  Beadlei'.  Readle,  2  McCrary,  586,595.  Gay  ex  parte.o  .Mass. 4 19;  Brewster  i\  Hill, 

6  Per  Wilde,  J.,  in  Tainter  v.  Clark,  13  1  N-  H.  3.50 ;  Thornton  v.  Mehring.  117  111.' 

Met.  (Mass.)  220,  228  ;  pwt,  §§  339  at  srq.  55  ;   Becker  r.  Walworth,  45  Oh.  .M.  169. 
6  Walker  r.  Murphy,  .34  Ala.  591,594;         '"Rap.    &    L.    Law    Diet.,    "Chattels 

Gray  v.  Henderson,  71  Pa.  St.  3G8.  Real";  Wms.  Ex.  [075]. 
VOL.  I.— 38 


594  PROPERTY   IN    POSSESSION.  §  278 

„  .J      ,         after  the  death  of  a  tenant  pur  autre  vie  oroes  to  tlie 

Residue  of  _  ^  ° 

lease /v«/-  executoF  01*  administrator  ;  ^  and  by   analogy  to  the 

provision  of  the  English  Statute  of  Frauds,^  (directing 
that  an  estate  pur  autre  vie  might  be  devised,  and  should  be 
chargeable  for  debts  on  debtor's  death,  in  the  hands  of  the  heirs 
of  a  special  occupant,  or  of  the  executor  or  administrator  if  there 
were  no  occupant,)  the  interest  of  an  assignee  of  a  lease  for  lives, 
although  a  freehold,  passed  on  his  death  to  his  executor  or  admin- 
istrator,^   Text-writers  also  mention  the  estate  known 

Terms  attend- 
ant on  the  as  terms   attendant  upon  the  inheritance,*  which  in 

intieiitauce.  ...  •  -,     •  in  ■,     •  o        -i 

equity,  it  is  said,  is  regarded  as  being  confined  to  the 
freehold,  and  inseparable  from  it.^ 

§  278.  Chattels  Real  cf  the  "Wife. — It  is  familiar  doctrine,  that 
Husband  may  at  commoii  law  the  wife's  interest  in  her  chattels  real 
ofYer  ili'te^e'sf  Hiay  bc  divcstcd  by  the  husband  at  any  time  during 
in  chattels  real.  (.Qverture.  But  he  may  permit  them  to  remain  in  statu 
tiiev  reniain"^^'  5'^<^?  ^^^  ^^  i"  ^\\q\\  case  the  wifc  survive,  they  are  hers 
hers  on  his        ^q  ^j-^g  exclusioii  of  his  cxecutors  and  administrators,^ 

death. 

unaffected  bv  testamentary  disposition  or  charge.'   The 

He  cannot  di-  "  j  i  ^ 

vest  her  by        disposition  by  the  husband,  in  order  to  divest  liis  wife's 

will.  .  .1,1  1  ,  1         •       •    1 

interest  in  chattels  real,  must,  as  a  general  principle, 
title  it  must  be  be  such  as  to  cffcct  a  complete  change  of  the  interest 
tered  during"  held  by  liusbaud  and  wife  jointly.^  Thus  recovery, 
coverture.  after  ejectment,  by  the  husband  in  his  own  name,  is 

sufificient ;  ^  but  where  the  husband  had  taken  the  lease  into  cus- 
tody, applied  to  an  attorney  to  collect  the  rent,  and  the  wife 
seemed  unwilling  to  execute  a  power  of  attorney  to  prosecute  in 
the  name  of  both,  whereupon  the  husband  relinquished  his  inten- 
tion, it  was  held  that  the  husband  had  not  thereby  altered  the 
title.i^  So  if  the  husband  mortgages  the  wife's  term  and  makes 
default  in  payment,  by  reason  whereof  the  mortgagee's  title  be- 
comes absolute,  the  wife's  right  by  survivorship  is  defeated ;  but 

1  3  Redf.  on  Wills,  143  et  seg.,  pi.  4-6.  ^  i  Bisli.  on  Mar.  Women,  §  188;  Stew. 

2  29  Car.  II  c.  3,  §  12.  Husb.  &  Wife,  §  145.  Both  of  tiiese  writers 

3  Mosher  v.  Yost,  3-3  Barb.  277,  279.  cite  as  authority,  besides  Coke  (Litt.  46  b, 

4  When  a  term  is  created  for  a  par-  351  a),  Roberts  v.  Polgrean,  1  H.  Bl.  535; 
ticular  purpose,  and  this  purpose  has  been  3  Redf.  on  Wilis,  146,  pi.  13. 
accomplished,  the  termor  is  held  inequity  ^  Wins.  Ex.  [6(»1]. 

as  trustee  for  the  owner:  Wms.Ex.  [1675].  »  3  Hedf.  on  Wills,  146,  pi.  18  ;  Brett 

5  3  Hedf.  on  Wills,  143,  pi.  3 ;  Schoul.     v.  Cumberland,  3  Bulst.  163,  164. 

Ex.  §  221.  ^^  Daniels  i-   Richardson,  22  Pick.  565, 

6  Schoul.  Husb.  &  Wife.  §  164  ;  Wms.      570. 
Ex.  1690]  ;  3  Redf.  on  Wills,  146,  pi.  12. 


§  279  MORTGAOKS.  595 

if  the  mortgacree's  title  is  defeated  by  payment  at  maturity,  her 
interest  is  not  affected.^ 

Power  in  the  husband  to  divest  the  whole  of  his  wife's  estate  in 
chattels  real  includes  power  to  divest  any  jjart  thereof.  ^^^^  ^^  ^^^_ 
Hence,  if  he  alone  grants  a  portion  of  the  wife's  term,  partially  .livest 

wiiG  s  title* 

reserving  rent,  he   makes  himself  the  owner  of  the 

term  so  granted,  and  the  rent  reserved  will  go  to  his  executor  ;2 

but  the  residue  will  survive  to  the  wife.^ 

If  the  husband  survive,  he  is  entitled  to  his  wife's  chattels  real 
not  disposed  of  by  him  during  coverture,  and  of  which  if  husband 
he  had  possession /wrfj  uzoris ;  not  as  her  executor  or  ^^^^fe'sriiattois 
administi-ator,  but  by  right  of  survivorship.-    Hence,  if  |^J||,'|^,Ij7i"^i" 
he  should  himself  die  without  having  administered  on  right. 
the  wife's  estate,  her  chattels  real  go  to  his  executor  or  admin- 
istrator.^ 

§  279.  Mortgages,  as  well  as  deeds  of  trust  to  secure  the  pay- 
ment of  debts  to  the  decedent,  always  go  to  the  executor  or 
administrator,^  even  though  the  estate  was  in  process  ,^  ^ 

'  °  ^  Mnrt craves  jjn 

of  foreclosure  at  the  time  of  the  testator's  death,'^  and  t<.  personal  rep- 

r  t?  ?  G 11 1 Q  t  i  V  G 

although  the  heirs  obtained  possession  before  the  ap- 
pointment of  an  administrator.^     So,  also,  the  real  estate  acquired 
by  an  executor  or  administrator  in  satisfaction  of  a  go  real  ctate 
judgment  for  a  debt  due  the  deceased  is  held  by  him  ^X'due  to^he 
in  trust  until  it  appears  that  it  is  not  needed  to  pay  deceased, 
debts  or  expenses  of  administration,  Avhen  the  title  passes  to  the 
heirs.^     The  equity  of   redemption  in  the  mortiraffor 

.  .  Ill'-        F-qnitv  of  re- 

descends   to  his  heirs.     Hence   it  has  been  held  m  demption  eoes 
New  York,  that,  while  the  surplus  proceeds  of  a  sale 

1  Wms.  Ex.  [602],  citin,?  Young  r.  Calden, -56  Me.  204,  210 ;  Clark  r.  Rlack- 
Radford,  Hob.  3  h,  wliicli,  liowever,  turns  injjton,  110  Mass.  369;  Ladcl  r.  Witrjrin, 
upon  a  mortgage  made  by  iiusband  and  3.')  N.  H.  421  ;  Slioolbred  v.  Drayton,  2 
wife,  and  surviving  to  the  Iiusband  by  Desaus.  246  ;  Clapp  ;•.  Reardsley,  1  Vt. 
tlie  wife's  death  before  the  day  of  pay-  I'^l,  167;  Williams  v.  Ely,  13  Wis.  1,  6; 
ment.  Copper  v.  Wells,  1  N.  J.  Eq.  10  ;  Hera- 

2  3  Redf.  on  Wills,  146,  pi.  14.  menway  v.  Lynde,  79  Me.  299. 

8  Wms.  Ex.  [694],  citing  as  authority  "  Fay  v.  Cheney,  14  Pick.  399;  Dewey 

two  cases  from  Cro.  Eliz.  ?'.  Vnn  Deusen,  4  Pick.  19;  Stevenson  v. 

*  3  Hedf.  on  Wills,  147,  pi.  15.  Polk,  71  Iowa,  278,  290. 

5  Wms.    Ex.    [695]  ;    Roberts   v.   Pol-  **  Haskins  v.   Hawkes,  108  Mass.  379 ; 

grean,  1  FT.  Bl.  535.  Demarest  v.  Wynkoop,  3  .John.  Ch.  129. 

«  Smitli  V.  Dyer,  16  Mass.  18;  Taft  v.  '■>  Webber    v.    Webber.    6    Me.     127  ; 

Stevens,  3  Gray,  .504  ;  Long  v.  O'Fallon,  Boylston  v.  Carver,  4  Mass.  598 ;  Gibson 

19    How.  (U.    S)    116,   125;    Burton    v.  r.  Bailey,  9  N.  H.  168. 
Hintrager,    18   Iowa,    348  ;    Webster   v. 


596  PROPERTY    IN    POSSESSION.  §  280 

during  the  lifetime  of  the  mortgagor  constitute  personal  ])roi)crty 
going  to  the  executor,  the  surplus  of  a  sale  after  his  death  repre- 
sents real  estate  and  goes  to  the  heirs. ^ 

It  follows  from  the  law  giving  to  executors  and  administrators 
the  custody  of  real  as  well  as  of  personal  estate,  as  is  provided 
Surplus  of  sale  hy  statutc  in  some  States,  that  such  surplus  remain- 
'"oesTo^the'e^x-  ^^^  after  payment  of  the  debt  secured  and  expenses 
ecutor.  of  qq\q  likewise  goes  to  the  executor  or  administrator. 

And  it  is  held  in  Delaware  that  such  surplus  should  be  paid  to 
and  held  by  the  executor  or  administrator  until  it  appear  that  it 
is  not  needed  for  the  payment  of  debts.^  So  in  Massachusetts, 
the  surplus  proceeds  of  a  sale  under  a  power  directing  such  sur- 
plus to  be  paid  to  the  mortgagor  or  his  assigns,  may  be  recovered 
by  the  mortgagor's  executor,  although  devised  to  others,  who 
holds  it,  first  to  the  use  of  the  widow,  next  for  payment  of 
debts,  and  lastly  to  the  uses  of  the  will.^     The  ven- 

Vendor's  hen.      i      ,      t  (.  .  i 

dor  s  lien  for  unpaid  purchase  money,  being  a  chose 
in  action,  goes  to  the  executor  or  administrator,  and  not  to  the 
widow  or  heirs  as  such.* 

§  280.  Chattels  Animate.  —  Domestic  animals,  being  personal 
property,  go  to  the  executor  or  administrator.  Of  animals /erce 
Domestic  ani-  naturos  oiily  sucli  go  to  the  personal  representative  as 
ecuto^"anV'^"  ^-rc  confiucd,  or  in  the  immediate  possession  of  man  ; 
w""«ri^d"pos-  ^^^^^  ^^  tame  pigeons,  deer,  rabbits,  pheasants,  par- 
session,  tridgcs,  etc.  ;  or  animals  kept  in  a  room,  cage,  or 
the  like;  fish  in  a  box,  tank,  or  net;^  doves  in  a  dove-house;^ 
or  animals  wounded  so  as  to  prevent  their  escape,"  or  killed  ;  or 
oysters  artificially  planted  in  a  bed  clearly  separated  and  marked 
FercB  nahtrm  out  for  the  purposc.^  But  auimals  ferce  naturce,  in 
growth' die'  ^'^  ^^^'  ^^  ^^^^y  helong  to  a  privilege  connected  with 
'^"'^-  landed  possession,  such  as  deer  in  a  park  (not  so 
tame  or  reclaimed  from  their  wild  state  as  to  become  personal 
property),  fish  in  a  pond,  and  the  like,  will  go  to  the  heir,  if  the 

1  Cox  t-.McBurney,  2  Santlf.  561,563;  »  Buster   v.    Newkirk,    20  John.   75; 

Sweezey  v.  Willis,  1  Bradf.  495;  Moses  Pierson  v.  Post,  3  Cai.  175. 

V.  Murgatroyd,  1  John.  Ch.  119;  Bogert  ^  Commonwealth  v.  Chace,  9  Pick.  15. 

V.  Furman,  10  Pai.  4f>6 ;  Dunning  i-.  Ocean  "  But  simple  pursuit  is  not  sufficient  to 

Bank,  61  N.  Y.  497.      See  also  Garlick  v.  create  ownership  :  Buster  ik  Newkirk  and 

Patterson,  2  Chev.  27.  Pierson  v.  Post,  supra. 

^  Vincent  r.  Piatt,  5  Harr.  164,  167.  »  Fleet   v.    Hegeman,    14    Wend.    42; 

3  Varnum  v.  Meserve,  8  Allen,  158.  Decker  v.  Fisher,  4  Rarh.  692;  Lowndes 

4  Evans  v.  Enloe,  70  Wis.  345,  348.  v.  Dickerson,  34  Barb.  586. 


§  281  CHATTELS   VEGETABLE.  507 

deceased  held  a  freehold  estate,  or  to  the  executor,  as  accessory  to 
the  chattel  real,  if  he  held  a  term  for  years. ^ 

§  281.    Chattels  Vegetable.  —  Chattels  vegetable,  behig  the  fruit 
or  other  i)arts  of  a  phint  when  severed  from  its  body,  or  the  plant 
itself  when  severed  from  the  ground,  go  to  the  ex-  Fruit  or  plants, 
ccutor  or  administrator.     l>ut  unless  they  have  been  f^.^Jil^fhe^""^ 
severed,  trees  and  the  fruit  and  produce  therefrom  [][;.'"'^'';.^,';,;"^^ 
follow  the  nature  of  the  soil  upon  which  they  grow,  adiuinistrator. 
and  when  the  owner  of  the  land  dies  they  descend  to  the  heir  or 
person  entitled  to  the  land.^     But  even  growing  tim-  Growing  tim- 
ber, trees,  and  grass  may,  under  special  circumstances,  1",^^/ "J  fo  ufe 
become  chattels,  and  as  such  pass  to  the  executor  or  f.^,::';;;'"^""if 
administrator ;  where,  for  instance,  the  owner  of  the  stances, 
fee  grants  the  trees  on  land  to  another,  they  become  personalty.^ 
Or  the  owner  in  fee  simple  may  sell  the  land  and  reserve  the  tim- 
ber or   trees,  and  they  thereby  become  personalty  and  go  to  the 
personal  representative.*     A  distinction  is  also  made  in  England, 
and  has  been  recognized  in  America,  between  trees  fit  for  timber 
and  such  as  are  not; — the  former,  when  severed  by  the  tenant 
during  his  term,  or  by  the  act  of  a  stranger,  or  by  tempest  or  other 
providential  act,  becoming  the  property  of  the  owner  in  fee  ;  the 
latter,  that  of  the  tenant.^ 

1  Ferguson  v.  Miller,  1  Cow.  243,  hold-  a  valid  sale  in  writing  by  the  owner  of 

ing  that  a  swarm  of  bees  in  a  bee  tree  the  fee  in  land  are  severed,  in  conteiiipla- 

belong  to  the  owner  of  tlie  soil  where  the  tion  of  law,  from  the  land,  and  become 

tree  stands  ;    and  if  lie  gives  license  to  chattels  personal  :  Warren   v.   Leland,  2 

two  persons  successively  to  take  them.  Barb.  613,  618;  but  a  mortgage  of  grow- 

liiey  become  the  property   of  him  who  ing  trees  or  grass  by  the  owner  of  tlie  fee 

first  takes  possession,  although  the  other  of  tiie  land  does  not  work  a  severance 

first  marked  the  tree.     Wms.  Ex.  [704],  until  it  becomes  absolute  by  non-j)erform- 

with  English  and  American  authorities.  ance  of  the  condition  :  Bank  of  Lansing- 

^  Green  v.  Armstrong,  1  Denio,  550,  burgli  v.  Crary,  1  Barb.  542,  545. 
554.  Grass,  clover,  hay,  and  fruits  hang-  *  3  Redf.  on  Wills,  151,  pi.  2,  citing 
ing  on  trees  go  with  the  land  :  Kain  v.  Herlakenden's  Case,  4  Co.  62  a. 
Fisher,  6  N.  Y.  597  ;  Evans  v.  Iglehart,  6  ^  Bewick  i:  Whitfield,  3  l\  Wms.  266, 
G.  &  J.  171, 173  ;  Craddock  v.  Riddlesbar-  268  ;  Herlakenden's  Case,  4  Co.  63  a  ; 
ger,  2  Dana,  205,  206 ;  Mitchell  v.  Billings-  Brackett  i-.  Goddard,  54  Me.  309  ;  Kit- 
ley,  17  Ala.  391,  398  ;  Price  v.  Brayton,  19  tredge  v.  Woods,  3 N.  H.  50.3,  506  (dictum). 
Iowa,  309  (distinguishing  between  trees  But  in  Illinois  it  was  held  that  logs  hewn 
planted  by  the  owner  of  the  realtor  and  and  lying  loosely  upon  the  land,  although 
trees  planted  by  a  tenant  for  the  purposes  cut  with  the  view  of  erecting  a  granary 
of  trade);  M.iples  v.  Millon  (drawing  the  on  the  land,  do  not  pass  under  a  deed 
same  distinction,  but  holding  it  inapplica-  for  the  land  :  Cook  v.  Whiting,  16  111. 
ble  between  mortgagor  and  mortgagee),  480,  482;  Wincher  v.  Shrewsbury,  3  El. 
31  Conn.  598,  600.  283. 

3  Wms.  Ex.  [707].     Growing  trees  by 


598  PROPERTY   IN   POSSESSION.  §  282 

§  282.   Emblements,  as  against  the  heir,  belong  to  the  executor 

or  administrator.     "  The  vegetable  chattels  called  emblements," 

say  the   Supreme   Court  of  Penns\'lvania,i  "  are  the 

I'.mblements  Ro         "^  i         r      i  "  i  i  •    i 

t(i  excLLitor  or  cum  and  other  growth  of  the  earth  which  are  pro- 
a(  mini!,  Id  01 ,  ^^jj^jggj  annually,  not  spontaneously,  but  by  labor  and 
industry,  and  thence  are  caWod  fructus  mdustrialisy  The  term  in- 
cludes every  product  of  the  earth  yielding  an  annual  profit  as  the 
result  of  labor  and  manuring ;  such  as  corn,  grain,  hops,  saffron, 
hemp,  flax,^  melons  of  all  kinds,^  and  the  like.  But  roots,  such 
as  carrots,  parsnips,  turnips,  skerrets,  &c.,  are  said  to  belong  to 
the  realty,  because  it  is  not  right  that  the  executor  should  "  dig 
and  break  the  soil,"  *  except  potatoes,  which  are  held  to  come 
because  lie  who  witliiu  the  description  of  emblements.^  The  reason 
fio7  wfthoiu  his  ^^  ^^^^  ^'"^®  ^^'  ^^^^^  where  the  occupant  of  land  has 
fault,  lose  the     sowu  or  planted  the  soil  with  the  intention  of  raising  a 

iruit  01  his  '■  ... 

labor,  crop,  and  his  estate  determines  without  his  fault  be- 

fore harvest  time,  he  should  not  lose  the  fruit  of  his  labor  ;^  to 
accomplish  which  the  law  gives  to  him,  or,  if  the  tenancy  is  ended 
by  his  death,  to  his  executors  or  administrators,  the  profit  of  the 
^  ,,  crop.'^     Hence  the  right  is  confined  to  that  kind  of 

Emblements  ^  ° 

are  annual         crop  wliich  actually  repays  the  labor  by  which  it  is 
produced   within   the   year,   excluding    fruit-growing 
trees'.' Wis",       trecs  ^  aud  growing  crops  of  grass,  clover,  etc.,  though 
or  clover.  sown  from  seed,  and  though  ready  to  be  cut  for  hay.^ 

So  it  has  been  held  that  a  border  of  box  planted  by  a  tenant  (not 
a  gardener)  belongs  to  the  realty  ;  ^^  so  strawberries,  although 
planted  or  paid  for  by  the  incoming  tenant.^^ 

1  Per  Read,  J.,  in  Keiff  v.  Reiff,  64  Pa.  ^  Tliornton  v.  Burch,  20  Ga.  791,  792. 
St.  134,  137.  Tlie  statement  is  taken  from  ^  Redtield  mentions  an  exception  in  the 
Wms.  Ex.  and  will  be  found  at  p.  [710J.        case  of  nurserymen  who  plant  and  culti- 

2  Toll.  Ex.  150.  vate  trees  for  sale,  which  may  be  removed 
8  Wentw.  Ex.  153.  by  the  executor  or  administrator  as  per- 
*  Wentw.  Ex.  152.     Williams  calls  at-     sonalty  :    3  Redf.   on    Wills,    151,    pi.  4, 

tention  to  Lord  Coke's  statement,  that  if  citing  Penton  v.  Robart,  2  East,  88,  per 

the  tenant  plant  roots,  liis  executors  shall  Kenyon,  C.  J.,  90.     But  not  if  the  trees 

have  the  year's  crop  ;  and  suggests  that  were  to  be  transplanted  to  the  orchard  : 

it  would  be  so  held  to-day  :   Ex.  |71()].  Wyndham   v.   Way,   4  Taunt.  316;    nor 

s  Per  Bailey,  J.,  in  Evans  v.  Roberts,  unless  proof  be  made  that  the  trees  or 

5  B.  &  C.  829,  832.     The  reasoning  upon  shrubs   were   intended   to  be   treated  as 

which   this  case  was    decided  would  in-  chattels  :  Maples  v.  Millon,  31  Conn.  598. 

elude  all  roots,  and  this  seems  the  better  ^  Evans  v.   Iglehart,  6  Gill  &  J.   171, 

doctrine.  188;  Kain  v.  Fisher,  6  N.  Y.  597;  Crnd- 

6  "  He  that  plants  must  reap  "  :  Gwin  duck  v.  Riddlesbarger,  2  Dana,  205,  29ti. 

V.    Hi(!ks,    1    Ba3',    503  ;    Poindexter   v.  '^^  Empson  v.  Soden,  4  B.  &  Ad.  (loo. 

Blackburn,  1  Ired.  Eq.  286,  289.  ^^  ^  aiLerell  v.  Howells,  1  Camp.  227. 


§  282  EMBLEMENTS.  590 

That  tlie  executor  or  administrator  is  always  entitled  to  emble- 
ments as  against  the  heir  has  already  been  remarked,  though  it 
is  otherwise  as  against  the  dowress.^      But  the  execu-  Kxecutor  takes 

,    .  '     ,,        .  ,  ,•,!     1   J  11  J.  einljleiiii-nts  as 

tor  of  a  tenant  m  iec  is  not  entitled  to  emblements  as  a-ai.ist  tiic 
against  the  devisee,  on  the  ground  that  by  the  devise  t,^^'";,,';|;rJ^^,^ 
of  the  land  itself  the  growing  crops  went  with  it,  there-  "or  devisee, 
by  excluding  the  executor.-      This  distinction,  though  fully  es- 
tablished, is  said  by  both  English  and  American  judges  to  be  a 
cai)ricious  onc,'^  and  is  ignored  in  Indiana.^     That  the   adminis- 
trator is  not  entitled  to  the  growing  crops  sown  or  planted  after 
the  intestate's  death  seems  a  self-evident  proposition,  important  to 
be  remembered,  however,  in  cases  where  a  resort  to  the  real  estate 
becomes  necessary  for  the  payment  of  debts.^     So  it  is  self-evident 
that,  where  a  widow  or  minor  children  are  entitled   by  statutory 
provision  to  the  product  of  the  homestead  and  messuages,  the 
executor  or  administrator  is  excluded. 

In  America  the  subject  of  emblements  is  regulated  in  many 
States  by  statute.  In  most  of  them  it  is  provided  that,  if  the 
owner  die  between  the  last  day  of  December  and  the  „^  ^  ^ 

.  p    otatutes  resju- 

first  day  of  March,  emblements  go  to  the  heir;  but  if  latin- title  to 

r.  r>  -,  f  Tir        ^  11  i  T    emblements. 

he  die  after  the  first  day  of  March,  emblements  severed 
before  the  last  day  of  December  following  are  assets  in  the  hands 
of  the  executor  or  administrator.^  In  North  Carolina  the  statute 
continues  the  lease  of  a  tenant,  in  lieu  of  emblements,  until  the 
end  of  the  lease-year  current  at  the  time  of  the  death  terminat- 
ing it,  to  the  end  that  he  may  mature  and  gather  the  crops.' 

The  widow  is  entitled  to  the  crop  growing  on  the  land  assigned 
to  her  as  dower,  "  she  being  then  in  de  optima  possessione  viri, 
above  the  executor."  ^     So  if   she,  as  dowress,  sow  powiess  en- 
tlie  land  and  marry,  the  crop  will  go  to  her  on  the  ments.*^*^'" 

1  As  to  dowress,  see  ('"/"m,  note  8.  Rodman   v.  Rodman,   •'j4  Ind    444,  446; 

2  Wms.  Ex.  [713]  :  Budd  v.  Hiler,  27     Foote  v.  Overman,  22  HI.  App.  181. 

N.  J.  L.  4'].  52.  *^  Green    v.    Outright,     Wright,    738  ; 

3  Dennett  r.  Ilopkinson,  63  Me.  350.  Thompson  v.  Thompson,  6  Miinf.  514  , 
followed  in  Ilathorn  r.  Eaton,  70  Me.  21'.),  Waring  r.  Purcell,  1  Hill,  (S.  C.)  Cli.  103, 
221  ;  Lord  EUenhoroiigh  in  West  r  Moore,  10(3;  Singleton  v.  Singleton,  5  Dana,  87, 
8  East,  300,  343  ;  Shofner  v.  Shofncr,  5  93. 

Sneed,  04.  '  King  v.  Foscue,  01  X.  C.  110,  118. 

*  Iliimplirey  v.   Merritt,  51  Ind.  107,  »  Budd  i-.   Hiler,  27  N.  J.  L.  43,  53  ; 

200,  liohiing  that  emblements  go  to  the  Wms.    Ex.    [717]  ;    Anon.,  Dyer,  316  a. 

executor  as  part  of  the  personal  estate,  But  she  is  not  entitled   to  the  grass  or 

and  not  to  the  devisee.  fruits  in  her  husband's  land  not  assigned 

5  Kidwell  V.  Kid  well,  84  Ind  221,  227  ,  for  dower  :  Kain  v.  Fislier,  6  N.  V.  507. 


600  PROPERTY   IN   POSSESSION.  §  283 

Emblements  of  liusbaiid's  death  ill  preference  to  his  executor  or  ad- 

an  estate  held  ••ij.  ij.-ri  ii  ii  i 

by  husband  miiiistrator ;  but  II  she  marry,  and  her  husband  sow 
his\ieath^to  h'is  *^^^  ^'^"^  ^^^^  die,  tiie  crop  wiU  go  to  his  executor ;  1 
executor.  for  it  is  wcll  established  that,  upon  the  termination  of 

a  freehold  estate  held  by  the  husband  in  right  of  his  wife,  the  em- 
blements will  go  to  the  husband  or  his  representatives.^ 

It  is  hardly  necessary  to  add,  that  where  the  law  gives  emble- 
ments it  also  gives  the  right  of  entry,  egress,  and  regress,  so  far 
as  may  be  necessary  to  cut  and  remove  them.^ 

§  283.  Fixtures,  as  bet'wreen  the  Heir  and  the  Personal  Representa- 
tive. —  Fixtures  are  annexations  of  chattels  to  the  freehold  which 
may  according  to  concomitant  circumstances  assume  the  character 
Fixtures  are      of  either  real   or  personal  estate."*     In  its  technical 

tliinf^s  of  a  per-  ,  j      •        -c  i     j.i  •  i         r  i 

souai  nature  scusc  the  word  signihes  such  things  only  ot  a  personal 
r"!ityfremov-^  nature  as  have  been  annexed  to  the  realty,  and  which 
pam^who^  may  be  afterward  severed  or  removed  by  the  party 
united  them;  wlio  United  them,  or  his  personal  representatives, 
against  the  will  of  the  owner  of  the  freehold  ;  but  it  is  often  used 
thhigs  not  so  indiscriminately  in  reference  to  those  articles  which 
aiso'cau'ed  fix-  ^^'^  not  by  law  removable  when  once  attached  to  the 
^"'"^*''  freehold,  as  well  as  those  which  are  severable  there- 

from.^ Questions  concerning  fixtures  are  divided  by  text-writers 
into  such  as  arise  between,  1st,  vendor  and  vendee,  including  mort- 
gagor and  mortgagee  ;  2d,  heir  and  personal  representative ;  3d, 
landlord  and  tenant ;  and  4th,  executor  of  tenant  for  life  and  re- 
versioner or  remainderman.^  The  subject  in  hand  demands  the 
consideration  chiefly  of  the  second  and  fourth  classes ;  the  others 
will  be  noticed  only  in  so  far  as  they  furnish  principles  or  rules 
applicable  to  all.  The  cases  turning  upon  the  law  of  fixtures  are 
very  numerous  both  in  England  and  America,  nor  are  they  in 
every  instance  harmonious ;  but  it  is  neither  necessary  nor  com- 
patible with  the  limits  of  this  work  to  follow  them  in  detail,  or 

1  Haslett  V   Glenn,  7  Harr.  &  J.  17,  24.     Broom's  Legal  Maxims,  omitting  that  be- 

2  Hall  V.  Browder,  4  How  (Miss.)  224,  tween  vendor  and  vendee,  *417,  also  in 
230.  Wms.   on    Ex.   [731]    et  seq.,  where    this 

^  Penhallow  v.  Dwight,   7  Mass.   34 ;  subject    is    elaborately   and    thoroughly 

Parhani  v.  Tompson,  2  J  J.  Marsh.  1-59.  treated,    with    a    copious    collection    of 

^  Washb.  on  Real  Prop.,  hk.  1,  ch.  1,  American  authorities  in  Perkins's  anno- 

pl-  18.  tation  to  the  6th  American  edition ;  see 

5  Broom's  Leg.  Max.  *418,  419.  also  3  Redfield  on  Wills,  156  et  seq.,  and 

6  Washb.  on  Real  Prop.,  bk.  1,  ch.  1,  2  Kent's  Com.  *342  et  seq. 
pi.  19  ;  the  same  distinction  is  observed  in 


§  283  FiXTUiiES.  601 

even  to  notice  all  the  rules  laid  down  by  authors  on  tliis  subject. 
The  leading  principles  only  can  be  given,  and  such  illustrations  as 
may  be  decisive  of  them ;  referring  those  in  want  of  a  fuller  dis- 
cussion to  the  elementary  works  and  the  multitude  of  decisions 
therein  referred  to.  The  annotators  to  the  latest  editions  of 
Kent's  Commentaries  have  added  valuable  suggestions  and  re- 
flections upon  the  effect  of  late  decisions  on  this  much  vexed 
subject. 

The  maxim,  Quicquid  jjlantatur  solo  solo  cedit,  is  said  to  apply 
with  most  rigor  in  favor  of  the  inheritance,  and  against  the  right 
of  the  personal  representative  to  disannex  therefrom  and  consider 
as  a  personal  chattel  anything  which  has  been  affixed  thereto.^ 
Anciently  there  seems  to  have  been  no  exception  be-  Acconiinfr  to 
tween  the  executor  and  heir  of  the  tenant  in  fee  to  ttlhigTaiinxed 
the  rule  that  whatever  was  affixed  to  the  freehold  de-  de£mi'ed'ro'^ 
scends  to  the  heir  ;  ^  but  in  modern  times  some  relax-  ^'^e  iieir. 
ations  have  obtained  with  respect  to  fixtures  put  up  timTriixVures 
by  the  tenant  in  fee  for  the  purposes  of  trade,  and  for  ^ *^f  f"). J,™a- 
ornament   or   domestic   convenience.^      The   chattels  "?'^"' '"'  domes- 

tic  conveiuence 

first  held  to  pass  to  the  executor  as  trade  fixtures  go  to  the  ex- 

•  1  1  1    editor; 

were  a  cider-mill,  "though  deep  in  the  ground  and  g„ch  as  a  cider- 

certainly  affixed  to  the  freehold";*  a  fire-engine  set  •"'"' 
up  for  the  benefit  of  a  colliery  by  a  tenant  for  life,^  " 

machinery   for   calico-printing   erected   by    a   copart-  machinery, 

nership,^  a  granary  built  on  pillars  in  Hampshire;'  granary, 
also,  as  fixtures  set  up  for   ornament  and  domestic 

convenience,  a  furnace,  though  fixed  to  the  freehold  furnace, 
and   purchased   with   the    house,   and   the   hangings 

nailed  to  the  wall ;  ^  also  tapestry  and  iron  backs  to  tapestry, 

chimneys.^     But  the  English  judges  have  in  several  chimney  backs. 

1  Broom's  Leg.  Max.  *418.  rnptcy   of  mortgagors   and    the    mortf^a- 

2  Godolphin,pt.  2,  ch.  14,  §  1  ;  Touch-     gees;    in    rendering    tlie    opinion,    Lord 
stone,  p.  470  ;  Noy's  Maxims,  p.  5L  Lyndiiurst  remarked  :  "  Weare  ofopinion 

^  Wins.  Ex.  [7321,  [741],  and  autliori-  that,  with  respect  to  machinery  of  tliis  de- 
ties  ,   Harkness  v.  Sears,  2H  Ahi.  493,  496.  scription,  erected  by  the  bankrupts  for  tlie 

*•  Ex  rehitione  Wilbraiiam,  in  Lawton  purposes  of  trade,  it  wouhl  have  passed  to 

V.  Lawton,  3  Atk.  13.  the  executor,  and  not  to  the  iieir":  p  625. 

*  Lawton  v  Lawton,  3  Atk.  13.    "  Tliis  "  By  the  custom  :  Coram  Eyre.  Oh.  B., 

case,"  says  tlie  English  annotator,"prob-  Summer  Assizes,  1724,  apud  Winchester, 

ably  turned  upon  a  custom":  p.  16  of  1st  *  Squier  v.  Mayor,  2   Eq.    Oas.  Abr. 

Am.  from  3d  London  ed.  430.     And  see  Lord   Keeper  in  Beck  i». 

6  Trappesr  Harter,  3  Tyrw.603.    The  Kebow,  1  P.  Wms.  04. 

case  was  between  the  assignees  in  bank-  ^  Harvey  v.  Harvey,  2  Stra.  IIH. 


602  PROPERTY    IN    POSSESSION.  §  284 

modern  instances  adhered  to  the  old  rule  between  executors  and 

hcirs.i     It  seems,  therefore,  that  the  law  is  by  no  means  clearly 

settled  respecting  the  right  of  the  executor  of  the  tenant  in  fee  to 

fixtures  set  up  for  ornament  or  domestic  convenience.^ 

In  America  .  ,  .  „,, 

fixtures  may      Thc  American  cases  are  not  more  harmonious.     Ihus, 
a  furnace  so  placed  in  a  house  that  it  cannot  be   re- 
moved without  injury  to  thc  house  goes  to  the  heir ;  ^  but  a  still 

ersonai  ^^^  ^P  ^^^  ^  fumacc,  in  the  usual  manner,  for  making 
property.  whiskcy,  Is   uot  real,  but   personal   property.*     And 

marble  slabs  resting  on  brackets  screwed  into  the  wall  were  held 
to  be  pei-sonalty ;  but  a  bell  hung  upon  an  axle  resting  upon  a 
wooden  frame  placed  upon  a  platform  in  the  cupola  of  a  barn  was 
held  to  belong  to  the  realty.^  All  of  these  cases  are  reconcilable 
upon  the  old  rule  applied  with  reference  to  the  nature 
of  fixtures,  to  wit :  If  a  personal  chattel  is  so  affixed 
to  the  freehold  as  to  be  incapable  of  being  detached  therefrom 
without  violence  and  injury  to  the  freehold,  it  becomes  a  fixture, 
and  goes  with  the  real  estate;  but  if  it  is  not  so  annexed,  it  re- 
mains a  cliattel,  w^hether  the  annexation  be  for  use,  for  ornament, 
or  from  mere  caprice.^ 

§  284.  Modern  Statement  of  the  Rule.  —  The  old  notion  of  phys- 
ical attachment  is  said,  by  some  courts,  to  be  exploded ;  the  true 
^  .    .      ,  ^      criterion    to  determine  whether  fixtures  constitute  a 

Criterion  of  nx- 

tures  depends      part  of  the  realty  or  not,  or  rather,  whether  property 

on  circumstan-  ,  j    j.  j 

cfsof  eachcnse  usually  treated  as  personal  becomes  annexed  to  and 
iiSroVp(.iicy  goes  with  the  realty  as  fixtures,  must  depend  upon  the 
and  intention,  circumstauccs  of  cach  case,  viewed  in  the  light  of  the 
policy  of  the  law  and  of  the  intention  of  the  parties.'     In  other 

1  So  in  Winn  v.  Ingilhy,  5  B.  &  Alrl.  «  Burk  v.  Baxter,  3  Mo.  207  ;  Moore 
625,  set  ])Ots,  ovens,  anfl  ranges  were  held  v.  Smitli,  24  111.  512;  Terry  v.  Robins,  5 
to  go  to  the  heir;  in  Colegrave  v.  Dias  Sm.  &  M  291;  Crensliaw  v.  Crensiiaw,  2 
Santos,  2  B.  &  C.  76,  stoves,  coaling  cop-  Hen.  &  Munf.  22  ;  McCiintock  v.  Gra- 
pers,  and  blinds  ;  and  in  King  v.  St.  Dun-  ham,  3  McC.  (S.  C.)  553. 

Stan,   4  B.   &  C.  686,  stoves  and  grates  ^  Weston  v.  Weston,  102  Mass  514. 

fixed    with   brick-work    in    the  cliimney  ^  Providence  Gas   Co.   (.'.    Thurber.   2 

places,  and   cupboards    standing   on    the  R.  I   15. 

ground    supported   by    holdfasts,  all    re-  ''  Quinby   v    Manhattan    Co  .  24  N.  J. 

movable  without  injury  to  the  freehold,  Eq  260,  264,  Washb.  U    Pr  ,  bk    I,  ch.  1, 

were  held  to  belong  to  the  heir,  and  not  pi.  18;  Hill  v  Sewald,  5:^.  Pa.  St.  271,  274  ; 

the  executor.  citing  numerous  authorities ;  Thomas   v. 

2  Wms.  Ex.  [739].  Davis,  76  Mo.  72,  76  ;    Equitable  Co.  v. 

3  Main  v.  Schwarzwaelder,  4  E.  D.  Christ.  2  Flip.  599  ,  Green  r  I'hillips  26 
Smith,  (N.  Y.)  273;  Tuttle  v.  Robinson,  Gratt.  752,  762;  Manwaring  r.  .lenison,  61 
33  N.  H.  104.  Mich.  117,  134,  citing  numerous  cases. 


§  284  MODERN    STATEMENT   OE   THE   KULE.  603 

words,  whatever  chattel  is  so  affixed  to  the  freehold  as  to  be  de- 
tachable tlierefroin  without  substantial  injury,  with  the  view  and 
for  the  purpose  of  its  more  complete  enjoyment  as  a  cliattel,  re- 
mains a  chattel,  and  may  be  removed  as  such  ;  Init  if  attached  to 
the  freehold  without  such  intention,  it  will  Ui  incorporated  there- 
with.'    Hence  the  road-bed  of  a  railway  and  the  rails  i',„ui-i)f.i  .,f  a 
fastened  to  it  may  be  trade  fixtui-es  removable  as  per-  |;;,r^;;;u"^'' ^^ 
sonal    property ,2   while    hay-scales,   annexed   to  the  i,ay-scaie3 
realty  in  the  usual  manner,  go  to  the  heirs  as  real  cs-  ''"'^^^y'' 
tate,  althoug-h  they  had  been  included  in  the  inventoiy  as  person- 
alty .^     So  water-wheels,  millstones,  running  gear,  and  ,y.i,er-wiieeis, 
bolting  apparatus  of   a  grist  and  flouring  mill,  and  ^jJ.'^^J.'^III'j*'.. 
other  fixtures  of  a  like  nature,  are  constituent  parts 
of  the  mill,  descending  with  the  real  estate,*  while  carding  ma- 
chines, looms,  and  other  machinery  used  in  manufac-  carding  ma- 
turing cloth,  which  are  complete  in  themselves  and  etcrper-""^' 
capable  of  being  used  in  one  place  as  well  as  in  another,  sonaity; 
not  requiring  to  be  fitted  in  the  building,  and  fixed  to  it  only  to 
give  stability  to  the  machinery,  are  held  to  be  personalty.^    But  if 
machinery,  though  so  constructed  as  to  be  portable  but  machinery, 
and  easily  conveyed  from  place  to  place  as  may  be  de-  aitho'S'porta- 
sircd,  is  affixed  with  the  intention  and  for  the  purpose  ^'*^'  ^'^  ^'^^^^y- 
of  being  used  as  a  permanent  structure  in  connection  with  the 
building,  it  becomes  part  of  the  realty;^  and  such  intention  may 
be  presumed  from  the  circumstances."     Manure  fi'om  Barn-yarii  ma- 
the  barn-yard  of  a  homestead,  although  neither  rotten  °"'« is  realty; 
nor  incorporated  with  the  ground,  but  in  a  pile  for  future  use, 
belongs  to  the  realty  ;  ^  but  manure  made  in  a  livery  livery  stable 

^  "^  ...     niaiuire  per- 

stable,  or   in  any  manner  not   connected  with   agri-  souaity; 

1  "  Physical  annexation   to  realty   is  ^  Dudley  i'.  Foote,  63  N.  H.  57. 
not  necessary  to  convert  a  chattel  into  *  House  v   House,  10  Pai.    158 ;  Lap- 
a   fixture.     If  the   article,  either  fast  or  ham  r.  Norton.  71  Me.  88. 
loose,  be  indispensable  in  carrying  on  the  ^  Tobias  r.  Francis,  3  Vt.  425  ;  Gale  v. 
specific   business,  it  becomes  part  of  the  Ward,    14   Mass.   30*2;    Walker  r.  Slier- 
realty  "  :  Morris's  Appeal,  88  Pa.  St.  3t)8,  man,  20  Wend.  G36-  3  Hedf  on  Wills.  161, 
383 ;  Ege  c.   Kille,  84   Pa.  St.  333,  340.  pi.  4  ;  Hill  v.  VVentworth,  28  Vt.  428,  432. 
So  an   article  which  would  otherwise  be  ^  Potter  r.  Cromwell,  40  N.  Y.  287. 
deemeil  a  fixture  may,  by  severance  and  "^  Voorhees  ?-.  McGinnis,  48  N.  Y.  278. 
the  understanding  of  the  parties,  become  ^  Fay  r.  Muzzey,  13  Gray,  53  :  Plumer 
a  chattel:  Sampsonr.  Graham,  90  Pa.  St.  r.  Plumer,  30  N.  H.  558,  568;  Kittredge 
405  408.  '■  Woods,  3  N.  H.  503  ;  Lassell  i:  Keed,  6 

■-  Northern  Railway  r.  Canton,  30  Md.  Me.  222;  whenever  made  in  the  ordinary 

347.  352  ;  so  a  depot :  Railroad  v.  Deal,  course  of  husbandry  :  Snow  v.   Perkins, 

90  N.  C.  110.  60  N.  H.  4y3 ;  Norton  i-  Craig.  68  Me.  275. 


604  PROPERTY    IN    POSSESSION.  §  284 

enclosure  be-  cultuFG  OF  husbandry,  is  personaltv,  and  goes  to  the 
lonptothe        executor.^     A  fence  enclosino;  a  field,  of  whatever  ma- 

vealty,  thouj^h  "  _ 

detached;  tei'ial  or  construction,  whether  having  posts  inserted 

in  the  ground  or  not,  is  part  of  the  freehold ;  ^  nor  does  it  cease 
to  be  so,  though  accidentally  or  temporarily  detached  therefrom 
rails  in  stacks,  witliout  intent  on  the  part  of  the  owner  to  divert  it 
feK^per^*^  permanently  from  its  use;'  but  rails  in  stacks,  not 
sonaity.  having  been  used  for  a  fence,  are   personalty.*    On 

Hop-poles,  the  same  principle,  hop-poles,  necessary  in  cultivat- 
ing hops,  are  part  of  the  real  estate,  though  taken  down  for  the 
purpose  of  gathering  the  crop,  and  piled  in  the  yard  with  the 
intention  of  being  replaced  in  the  season  of  hop-raising.^  That 
keys,  locks,  kcys,  doors,  windows,  bolts,  rings,  etc.,  belonging  to 
^^""'^  a  house,  though  temporarily  detached  therefrom,  be- 

pictures  7  0  1./ 

glasses, 'etc.  long  to  the  realty,  is  self-evident.  So  with  pictures, 
scot^nk"reaitV."  glasscs,  etc.  taking  the  place  of  wainscoting ;  for  "  the 
house  ought  not  to  come  to  the  heir  maimed  and  disfigured."^ 
As  between  ^s  between  devisee  and  executor,  the  rule  is  that  a 
devisee  and  ex-  (jgyigee  shall  take  the  land  in  the  same  condition  as  it 

eciitor,  devisee 

takes  the  land    would  havc  descended  to  the  heir ;  hence  he  is  entitled 

as  it  would  go  .    ■,  r^  -,  ■,        ^  -,  ^       ,^  1 

to  the  heir,  to  all  the  articles  affixed  to  the  land,  whether  annexed 
before  or  subsequent  to  the  date  of  the  devise ;  for  if  a  freehold 
house  be  devised,  fixtures  pass,  but  if  the  tenant  for  life  or  in  tail 
devise  fixtures,  his  devise  is  void,  he  having  no  power  to  devise 
and  executor  is  s^ch  fixturcs  as  would  pass  to  the  executor.'^  The 
entitled  to  tix-    gxccutor  is  therefore  entitled  to  all   the  fixtures  as 

tures  as  he  •   i     i     j. 

would  be  against  the  devisee,  that  he  would  be  entitled  to  as 

hfh'"^  '^  against  the  heir.^  But  there  seems  to  be  no  doubt 
that  if,  from  the  nature  and  condition  of  the  property  devised,  it 
is  apparent  that  the  testator  intended  the  fixtures  to  go  with  the 
freehold  to  the  devisee,  they  will  pass  to  him,  although  of  a  char- 
acter which  would  go  to  the  executor  as  against  the  heir.^ 

1  Snow  V.  Perkins,  60  N.  H.  493;  6  Cave  y.  Cave,  2  Vern.  508;  Guthrie 
Daniels  i:  Pond,  21  Pick.  367 ;  Needham  v.  Jones,  108  Mass.  191 ;  Ward  v.  Kil- 
V.  Allison,  24  N.  H.  355.  patrick,  85  N.  Y.  413. 

2  Smith  V.  Carroll,   4  Green    (Iowa),  ^  Rroom's  Leg.  Max.  *423,  424. 
146;  Glidden  v.  Bennett,  43  N.   H.  306;          8  Wms.  Ex.  [739]. 

Kimball  v.  Adams,  52  Wis.  554.  9  So  where  a  testator  devised  liis  free- 

3  Goodrich  v.  Jones,  2  Hill,  (N.  Y.)  hold  estate,  consisting  of  a  brew-house 
142.  and  malt-house  in  lease,  with  the  plant  and 

i  Clark  V.  Burnside,  15  111.  62.  utensils,  it  was  held  that  the  plant  passed 

5  Bishop  V.  Bishop,  11  N.  Y.  123.  with  the  brew-house,  on  the  ground  that 


§  285  FIXTURES.  605 

§    285.   Fixtures  as  between  Personal  Representative  of  Life  Tenant 
and  Remainderman.  —  Siiicc  tlic  heir  is  morc  favored  ill  law  than 
the  remainderman  or  reversioner,  in  this  respect,  or  rather,  since 
the  law  is  more  indulgent  to  the  executor  of  the  particular  tenant 
than  to  the  executor  of  the  tenant  in  fee,  it  follows  Executor's 
that  all  the  authorities  which  establish  the  executor's  ^'-''^ '"''f!"^"' 
risht  to  fixtures  as  a<z:ainst  the  heir  will  apply  aforti-  heir  applies « 
ori  against  the  remainderman  or  reversioner.     As  be-  the  remaiiider- 
twcen  landlord  and  tenant,  there  is  great  deviation 
from  the  rule,  that  what  has  been  once  annexed  to  the  freehold 
becomes  a  part  of  it,  and  it  would  be  erroneous  to  conclude  that, 
because  a  fixture  set  u})  for  ornament  or  domestic  convenience  has 
been  decided  to  be  removable   as  between  landlord  and  tenant, 
therefore  such  fixture  may  be  claimed  as  personalty  by  the  execu- 
tor of  a  tenant  for  life,  etc. ;  still,  there  is  much  similarity  between 
the  two  classes,  and  although  the  case  of  a  tenant  for  life  is  not 
quite  so  strong  as  that  of  a  common  tenant,  yet  the  reasoning  is 
closely  analogous  between  them.^     It  is  held,  in  this  Rifrhtoften- 

'  .  ,    1  !•   1      T   •      r  r    i  ants  ill  trade 

respect,  that  the  privilege  established  in  lavor  ot  ten-  does  not  extend 
ants  in  trade  does  not  extend  to  agricultural  tenants,  tenlims" 
so  as  to  entitle  them  to  remove  erections  for  the  pur-  1,^^  ^  p„n,p 
poses  of  husbandry.^    But  a  pump  erected  by  a  tenant  tenam\nav 
at  his  own  expense,  although  in  doing  so  an  open  well  be  removed. 
was  arched  over,  and  the  pump  was  attached  to  a  perpendicular 
plank  fastened  at  the  upper  end  by  an  iron  bolt  to  an  adjacent 
wall,  was  held  to  be  removable  as  a  tenant's  fixture."*     It  is  ob- 
vious that  the  executor  and  administrator  of  a  tenant  Tenant's  exec- 
utor and  admm- 
take  the   same  propei'ty  in  fixtures,  as  against  the  isiratortake 

the  testator  intemled  to  devise  the  plant  thereon  at  his  own  expense  a  substantial 

as  well  as  tlie  sliell  of  tlie  brew-house  :  beast-iiouse,  carpenter's  shop,  fuel-house. 

Wood    V.   Gaynon,   Ambl.    o95.     It    will  pump-house,  and  fold-yard  wall,  and  be- 

be  noticed  that  this  rule,  like  the  analo-  fore   the  expiration    of   his  term    pulled 

gous  one  with  regard  to  emblements.  a;i/^,  down  the  erections,  dug  up  the  founda- 

§  282,  p.  599,  is  but  the  application  of  tions,    and    carried   away  the  materials, 

the  familiar  principle,    that  in  the  con-  leaving  tlie  farm  in  the  same  condition  in 

struction    of   wills    the    intention    of  tlie  which  he  entered  upon  it,  was  held  liable 

testator,  if  ascertainable  from  the  instrii-  to  the  reversioner  for  the  value  of  the 

ment,  mast  govern.  buildings  :    Elwes   r.    Maw.  3    Kast,  .38. 

1  Broom's  L.  M.  *42G  ;  Wms.  Ex.  [741].  And  see  cases  crited  in  Wms.  on  Ex.  174-5], 

-  Wms.    Ex.  [744];  Gray,  J.,  in  Bain-  and  notes  (s)  and  (t). 
way  V.  Cobb,  99  Mass.  457.  *  Grymes   v.    Boweren,  6   Bing.   4.37 ; 

3  So  the  tenant  of  a  farm  under  a  lease  McCracken  v.   Hall,   7  Ind.   30;  Wall  v. 

for   twentv-one  years,  who  fifteen  j'ears  Hinds,  4  Gray,  25G,  272  et  seq. 
before  the  expiration  of  his  term  erected 


606  PROPERTY    IN    POSSESSION.  §  286 

same  property    owncr  of  the  fee,  or  the  reversioner,  as  the  testator  or 

ill  lixtures  as  i  i       •    i  p 

decedent  had.  intcstatc  had  therein;  and  that  the  legal  right  oi  a 
tenant  to  remove  fixtures  may  be  governed  by  express  sti))ulation, 
usually  inserted  in  a  lease  for  this  purpose. ^  The  privilege  of 
removing  fixtures  should  be  exercised  by  a  tenant  during  his 
term  ;  for  if  he  omit  to  do  so,  it  will  be  presumed  that  he  volun- 
tarily relinquishes  his  claim  in  favor  of  the  landlord.'^ 

The  subject  of  fixtures  has  engaged  the  attention  of  legislative 
authorities.  To  the  extent  of  the  statutory  provisions  they  are, 
Statutorv  ^^  coursc,  Controlling ;  but  where  the  statute  enacts  a 

regulations.  j-^le  for  a  class  of  cases,  it  does  not  extend  to  cases 
not  within  such  class.  Thus  it  was  held  in  New  York,  that  the 
statutory  rule  of  fixtures  between  the  personal  representatives 
and  the  heirs  of  a  deceased  party  is  not  controlling  in  cases  be- 
tween vendor  and  vendee.^ 

§  286.  Separate  Property  of  the  "Wife.  —  The  law  in  regard  to 
the  separate  property  of  married  women  has  of  late  undergone 
great  changes,  both  in  England  and  America ;  there  Kas  been  and 
still  is  a  strong  tendency  in  both  countries  to  supersede  the  com- 
mon law  rules  on  this  subject  by  the  principles  of  the  civil  law, 
and  to  accord  to  married  women  as  a  legal  right  what  formerly 
they  could  enjoy  only  under  the  aegis  of  a  court  of  equity.*     It  is 

1  Broom's  L.  M.  *-129,  430.  property)  is  completely  witiiin  tlieir  con- 

2  Talbot  V.  Whipple,  14  Allen,  177,  trol,  to  be  disposed  of  or  aliened  at  their 
181  ;  White  v.  Arndt,  1  Wliart.  91 ;  Dar-  personal  pleasure.  Judge  Rlcllvaine,  in 
rah  V.  Baird,  101  Pa.  St.  265;  State  r.  Piiillips  v.  Graves,  20  Oh.  St.  .371,  381, 
Elliot,  11  N.  H.  540 ;  if  not  removed  thus  pithily  describes  this  strange  anom- 
during  the  term,  the  right  is  renounced,  aly  in  English  and  American  jurispru- 
although  the  tenant  subsequently  take  dence:  "Courts  of  law  and  courts  of 
a  new  lease:  Sliepard  v.  Spaulding,  4  equity  coe.xistent  in  tlie  same  realm, — 
Met.  (Mass.)  410;  Hedderich  r.  Smidi,  the  former  merging  the  legal  existence  of 
103  Ind.  203,  and  authorities  cited  ;  Marks  the  wife  in  the  husband,  the  latter  rec- 
y.  Kyan,  63  Cal.  107;  Watriss  w.  Bank,  ognizing  her  separate  existence,  —  the 
124  Mass.  571  ;  Smith  v.  Park,  31  Minn,  former  declaring  her  incapable  of  acquir- 
70.  ing,  holding,  or  disposing  of  property,  — 

3  McKea  v.  Central  Bank,  66  N.  Y.  the  latter  recognizing  her  ability  to  ac- 
489,  495.  quire,  control,  and  dispose  of  her  estate,  — 

*  Married  women,  under  the  coexist-  the  former  denying  her  capacity  to  con- 

ence    of    legal   and   equitable   principles  tract,  or  to  sue  or  be  sued,  — the  latter 

governing  their  property,  are  placed  in  enforcing  her  agreements  by  granting  re- 

this  anomalous  predicament:  that  prop-  lief  both  for  and  against  her!  — And  yet 

erty  which  is  theirs  in  their  own  right  and  no  conflict  of  jurisdiction,  for  the  simple 

name  (legal  property)  they  can   neither  reason  that  cotnts  of  law  take  jurisdiction 

control,  enjoy,  nor  alienate  ;  but  jiroperty  of  the  wife's  general  property  and  give  it 

which  is  not  theirs  in  law,  that  is,  which  all  to  the  husband,  and  courts  of  equity 

is  held  for  them  by  a  trustee  (equitable  take  exclusive  cognizance  of  her  separate 


pa- 


§  286  SEPARATE    PROPERTY    OP   THE    WIFE.  607 

necessary,  therefore,  to  remember,  that,  in  all  cases  proporty  se- 
wiierc  by  statutory  provision  jjroperty  of  a  married  ';;;'';.'iVes  "i,' her 
woman  is  secured  to  her  aji^ainst  the  power  or  control  <-"  i';r  i"'^- 

,  P  1  •       1         1       ua'i'i  !*  death, 

of  the  husband,  it  will  survive  to  her  after  Ins  death, 
and  the  husband's  executor  or  administrator  has  no  title  thereto; 
and  if  the  husband  survive  the  wife,  such  property  ^"ft,""j,J'/;,''re 
will  ""0  to  her  executor  or  administrator,  and  the  hus-  that  of  the  hus- 

.  .  l)an(l  goes  to 

band  lias  no  interest  therein  unless  he  administer  on  her  executor  or 

,  ,     ,  ,    1        ii  J.       1  •    i.  i-  administrator. 

her  estate,  or  take  the  property  by  Tirtuc  ot  some 

^    /       '  1  -11        1         1    Chattels  owned 

statutory  provision.  But  at  common  law  the  husband  by  the  wife  at 
is  entitled  to  and  becomes  the  owner  of  all  chattels  ria^feVcome 
which  the  wife  owned  before  marriage,  or  which  come  pr'pj|.tj!^'"'^'^ 
to  her  during  the  existence  of  the  marriage,  whether  g,,,,  ^^'^^  j^jg 
she  survives  him  or  not ;  and  consequently,  though  executor  or 

•  (•   i'       administrator 

she  survive  him,  they  will  go  to  his  executor  it  he  on  his  death; 
makes  a  will,  or  to  his  administrator  if  he  dies  intestate.  But 
if  property  be  conveyed  or  bequeathed  to  or  settled  unless  phe  hold 
upon  her,  through  the  intervention  of  trustees,  or  even  for  iKTse"'^ 
without,  for  her  separate  use,  it  will  not,  upon  his  '"^''^  "*'^- 
death,  become  a  part  of  the  beneficial  estate  of  his  executors  or 
administrators.!  To  accomplish  this  purpose  it  is  necessary  that 
the  conveyance  to  the  wife  should  show  the  clear  intention  of  the 
donor  to  deprive  the  husband  of  his  marital  rights.^  A  separate 
estate  may  be  created  in  a  feme  sole  as  well  as  a  married  woman, 
which  after  marriage  will  be  good  against  the  husband's  marital 
riffht ;  and  where  such  estate  is  created  without  the  intervention 
of  trustees,  the  husband  will  take  the  legal  title,  but  equity  will 
regard  him  as  a  trustee  for  the  wife.^ 

estate  and  control  it  for  her  sole  benefit.  -  Williams  v.  Claiborne,  7  Sm.  &  M. 

While  tlie  judge  declares   lier  contracts  488;  Carroll  v.  Lee,  3  G.  &  J- 504  ;  Hale 

absolutely  void,  the  cliancellor  proceeds  v.  Stone,  14  Ala.  803 ;  Hubbard  v.  Bug- 

i))  rem  and  charges  her  separate  estate  as  bee,   58  Vt.   17:i,  177 ;  Duke  v.  Duke,  81 

equity  and  good  conscience  require."  Ky.   308.     Tiie  words  "  to  her  and   lier 

1   Wms.  Ex.    [749]   et  spq.,   citing  Co.  heirs' proper  use  "  do  not  create  a  sejiarate 

Lit.  351  b  ;  Jamison  u.  M:iy,  13  Ark.  600,  estate  in  a  legacy  to  a  married  daughter  : 

Hopper  V.  McWiiorter,  18  Ala.  229;  Par-  Kudisell  v.  Watson,  2  Dev.  Eq.  430. 

ker  V.  Converse,  5  Gray,  33G ;    Gully  v.  3  RUey  v.  Riley,  25  Conn.  154;  Fears 

Hull,  31  Miss.  20.    And  although  the  wife's  i-.   Brooks,  12  Ga.  195;  Robert  r.  West, 

chattels  become  tlie  husband's  by  virtue  15  Ga.  122,  134  et  seq. ;  Fellows  v.  Tann, 

of  the  marital  relation,  he  may  waive  ids  9  Ala.  999,  1003 ;    Shirley  v.  Sliiriey,  9 

rights  as  such,  and  by  his  declarations,  Pai.  363 ;   Waters  y.  Tazewell.  9  Md.  291 ; 

acts,  and   dealings,  free  and  relieve  her  Ni.x  r.  Bradley,  6  Rich.  Eq  43;  Bridges 

property  from  his  marital  claims :  Clark  i-.   Wilkins,  3  Jones   Eq.  ;542  ;    Beaufort 

i;.  Clark,  86  Mo.  114,  123.  v.  Collier,  6   Hunipii.  487;  Schafroth  v. 


608 


PROPERTY    IN   POSSESSION. 


§  287 


erty  settled  on 
the  wife  goes 
to  lier,  not  to 
the  husband's 
representative, 


It  is  sometimes  held,  that  an  express  trust  for  the  benefit  of  a 

married  woman  in  personal    property  ceases  upon  discovcrture,^ 

and  is  not  revived  upon  a  second  marriage.^ 

§  287.   Ante-nuptial  and  Post-nuptial  Settlements.  — Ante-nuptial 

Personal  prop-  Settlements  of  money,  jewels,  furniture,  or  other  mov- 
ables, by  the  husband  upon  the  wife,  are  valid  against 
the  husband  and  all  claiming  under  him,  as  well  as 
his  creditors.^     The  title   of  the  wife  is  good,  even 

against  creditors,  and  a  fortiori  against  the  executor  or  adminis- 
trator, although  the  settlor  contemplated  defrauding 

althou£rh  so  ''  .cii  •  TTT 

settled  in  fraud  his  Creditors,  if  the  future  wife  had  no  notice  and  did 
not  participate  in  the  intent.*  So  an  agreement  be- 
fore marriage,  in  writing,  that  the  wife  shall  be  entitled  to  specific 
parts  of  her  personal  estate  to  her  specific  use,  will  be  enforced  in 
equity,  although  the  legal  title  be  vested  in  the  husband  by  the 
subsequent  marriage ;  ^  the  husband  in  such  case  becomes  trustee 
for  his  wife's  separate  use,  and  the  trust  will  bind  his  executors 


Ambs,  40  Mo.  114.  Even  in  case  of  a 
direct  gift  from  husband  to  wife  :  Thomas 
V.  Harkness,  13  Bush,  23. 

1  Roberts  v.  Moseley,  51  Mo.  282,  286. 

2  On  the  ground  tliat  an  attempted 
restriction  of  a  gift  to  tlie  separate  use  of 
a  married  woman  is  impracticable-  Ham- 
ersley  v.  Smith,  4  Wliart.  126,  128.  It  is 
held  in  a  number  of  Pennsylvania  cases, 
that  a  trust  for  coverture  can  take  effect 
only  if  immediate  marriage  is  contem- 
plated :  Ogden's  Appeal,  70  Pa.  St.  501 ; 
Dodson  V.  Ball.  60  Pa.  St.  492 ;  Hepburn's 
Appeal,  65  Pa.  St.  468,  and  many  others. 
So  in  Isorth  Cnrolina  :  Apple  v.  AUen, 
3  Jones  Eq.  120 ;  Miller  v.  Bingliam,  1 
Ired.  Eq.  423 ;  Lindsay  v.  Harrison,  8 
Ark.  802.  In  Kentucky  it  is  held  that  a 
separate  estate  may  be  made  to  extend 
to  a  particular  coverture,  or  to  any  num- 
ber, regardless  whether  before  or  during 
coverture.  It  is  always  a  question  of  in- 
tention with  the  conveyor  or  devisor  : 
Duke  V.  Duke,  81  Ky.  808,  311. 

3  2  Sugd.  on  Vend.  &  Purch.,  bottom 
p.  715,  and  authorities ;  Vogel  v.  Vogel, 
22  Mo.  161 ;  De  Barante  v.  Gott,  6  Barb. 
492;  Miller  v.  Goodwin,  8  Gray,  542; 
Tisdale  v.  Jones,  38  Barb.  523  ;  Williams 
V.  MauU,  20  Ala.  721.  Ante-nuptial  con- 
tracts intended  to  regulate  and  control 


the  interest  which  each  shall  take  in  the 
property  of  the  other  during  coverture 
or  after  death  will  be  enforced  in  equity 
according  to  the  intention  of  the  parties. 
The  court  will  impose  a  trust  commen- 
surate with  the  obligations  of  the  con- 
tract :  Johnston  v.  Spicer,  107  N.  Y.  185. 
To  same  effect,  Desnoyer  v.  Jordan,  27 
Minn.  295.  Such  a  contract  is  binding 
on  the  wife,  unless  the  provision  is  so 
disproportioned  to  the  husband's  means 
as  to  create  a  presumption  of  fraud  : 
Smith's  Appeal,  115  Pa.  St.  319. 

*  Clay  V.  Walter,  79  Va.  92  ;  Andrews 
V.  Jones,  10  Ala.  400,  421;  Bunnel  v. 
Witherow,  29  Ind.  123,  132,  Frank's  Ap- 
peal, 59  Pa.  St.  190,  194  ;  Tunno  v. 
Trezevant,  2  Desaus.  264 ;  Magniac  i'. 
Thompson,  7  Pet.  348,  393  ;  Prewit 
I'. Wilson,  103  U.  S.  22. 

'''  In  some  States,  even  an  oral  ante 
nuptial  agreement  to  this  effect  was  held 
good  :  Southerland  v.  Southerland,  5 
Bush,  591 ;  Child  v.  Pearl,  43  Vt.  224 ; 
Riley  r. Riley,  25  Conn.  154-  at  least  upon 
waiver  of  the  Statute  of  Frauds:  Kirksey 
V.  Kirksey,  80  Ga.  156.  But  the  Statute 
of  Fraufls  is  generally  a  defence  against 
an  executory  ante-nuptial  marriage  con- 
tract:  Lloyd  V.  Fulton,  91  U.  S.  479; 
Bradley  v.  Saddler,  54  Ga.  681,  684. 


§  2S7      ANTE-NUPTIAL    AND    POST-NUPTIAL   SETTLEMENTS.        609 

and  administrators. •  But  a  promissory  note  gi\cn  l)y  a  hus])and 
to  liis  wife  before  marriage  bccomeii  a  nullity  l)y  the  marriage, 
and  is  not  revived  by  the  death  of  the  husband  ;2  it  remains 
valid,  however,  if  the  statute  secures  the  wife's  personal  prop- 
erty to  her.'^ 

Post-nuptial  settlements,  as  well  as  gifts  by  the  husband  to  the 
wife  during  coverture,  are  valid  against  himself  and  all  who  claim 
as  volunteers  under  or  through  him,"* and  even  against  Postnuptial 
creditors,  unless  fraudulent  as  to  them.^     They  are  valid  asai'nst 
deemed  fraudulent  if  the  debts  of  the  settlor  were  umierilusi.and, 
considerable  at  the  time  of  making  the  settlement,  ami  against 

"  '    creditors  if  not 

and  would  be  defeated  thereby ; ^  or  if,  though  not  in-  fiauduient. 


1  2  Sugd.  on  Vend.  &  Piirch.  [718], 
and  American  atithorities  by  Perkins, 
note  (di). 

^  Cliapman  r.  Keliogsc,  102  Mass.  246 ; 
Intrliam  v.  White,  4  Allen,  412;  Abbott 
V.  Winchester,  105  Mass.  115;  Patterson 
V.  Patterson,  45  N.  H.  164;  Smiley  v. 
Smiley,  18  Oh.  St.  54,3.  But  such  a 
note  remains  in  force  after  the  niarriatie 
by  virtue  of  the  statute  of  New  York : 
Wriglit  V.  Wright,  59  Barb.  505.  So  in 
Iowa  :  Logan  v.  Hall,  19  Iowa,  401 ;  and 
it  seems  in  Massachusetts:  Butler  c.  Ives, 
130  Mass.  202,  disapproving  Chapman  r. 
Kellogg,  and  Abbott  v.  Winchester,  snpra. 

2  Stone  V.  G.izzam,  46  .Ala.  26J;  see 
cases  in  j)rcceding  note. 

i  Pascliall  V.  Hall,  5  Jones  Kq,  108 ; 
Teasdale  r.  Reaborne,  2  Bay,  540,  550  ; 
Rogers  c.  Ludlow,  3  Sandf.  Ch.  104; 
Butler  V.  Rickets,  11  Iowa,  107;  Barker 
V.  Koneman,  13  Cal.  9;  Scogin  v.  Stac}', 
20  Ark.  2G5 ;  Brackett  v.  Waite,  4  Vt.  389 ; 
Sims  V.  Rickets,  35  Ind.  181  ;  Bancroft  v. 
Curtis,  108  Mass.  47  ;  Hunt  v.  Johnson, 
44  N.  Y.  27  ;  Mayfield  v.  Kilgour,  31  Md. 
240. 

5  Moore  v.  Page,  111  U.  S.  117;  Ber- 
trand  v.  Elder,  23  Ark.  494  ;  Picquet  r. 
Swan,  4  Mas.  (U.  S.  C  C.)  443  ;  Wiley  r. 
Gray,  36  Miss.  510;  Leavitt  v.  Leavitt, 
47  N.  H.  329;  Larkin  i-.  McMullin,  49 
Pa.  St.  29;  Kane  v.  Desmond,  G3  Cal. 
464;  Pomeroy  r.  Bailey.  43  N.  H.  118; 
Niller  v.  Johnson,  27  Md.  0 ;  Gilligan  r. 
Lord,  51  Conn.  562;  Fisher  r.  Williams, 
56  Vt.  586;  Tootle  v.  Coldwell,  30  Kan. 
125. 

VOT..  T    —  39 


G  Borst  V.  Corey,  16  Barb.  136,  139  ; 
Gardner  v.  Baker,  25  Iowa,  343;  Kuhn 
V.  Stansfield,  28  Md.  210;  Jones  v.  Mor- 
gan, 6  La.  An.  6;30 ;  William  &  Mary 
College  V.  Powell,  12  Gratt.  372,  381 ; 
Williams  V.  Avery,  38  Ala.  115;  Allen  v. 
Walt,  9  Heisk.  242;  Clayton  v.  Brown, 
30  Ga.  490;  Reynolds  v.  Lansford,  16 
Tex.  286.  But  the  presumption  of  fraud 
may  be  rebutted  :  Thacher  v.  Phinney, 
7  Allen,  146;  Woolstone's  Appeal,  51  Pa. 
St.  452 ;  Babcock  '•.  Eckler,  24  N.  Y. 
623;  Belford  v.  Crane,  16  N.  J.  Eq.  265; 
Potter  V.  McDowell,  31  Mo.  62;  Walsh  v. 
Kctchum,  84  Mo.  427  ;  Norton  ?•.  Norton, 
5  Cush.  524;  Filley  c  Register,  4  Minn. 
391  ;  Freeman  r.  Burnham,  36  Conn. 
469,  473;  Sweeney  v.  Damron,  47  111. 
450,  457.  See  an  elaborate  discussion 
of  the  principles  applicable  to  a  volun- 
tary conve3'ance  between  creditors  of  the 
grantor  and  claimants  under  the  deed,  by 
JJ.  Baldwin  and  Stanard,  in  the  case  of 
Hunters  v.  Waite,  3  Gratt.  26,  op.  pp.  32- 
72,  citing  English  and  American  text- 
books and  decisions  ;  Ellinger  v.  Crowl, 
17  Md.  361  ;  Annin  v.  .Vnnin,  24  N.  J.  Eq. 
184;  Phelps  r.  Morriscm,  24  N.J.Eq.  195; 
Kipp  r.  Hanna,  2  Bland  Ch.  26  ;  Moritz 
r.  Hoffman,  85  III.  553 ;  Tripner  r.  .\bra- 
liams,  47  Pa.  St.  220  ;  Reade  v.  Living- 
ston, 3  Johns.  Ch.  481  ;  Woodson  c. 
Pool,  19  Mo.  340.  A  convey  a  ni-e  from 
husband  to  wife  without  consideration 
is  void  as  against  existing  creditors,  al- 
though no  fraud  be  actually  intended  : 
Robinson  v.  Clark,  76  .Me.  493 ;  Watson 
r.  Riskamire,  45  Iowa,  231. 


610 


PROPERTY   IN    POSSESSION. 


§  287 


debted  at  the  very  time,  yet  he  became  so  shortly  afterward,  so 
that  it  may  be  presumed  that  he  made  the  settlement  with  a  view 
to  becoming  indebted  at  a  future  time.^  But,  in  general,  debts 
subsequently  incurred  will  not  defeat  a  post-nuptial  settlement, 
nor  will  the  presumj^tion  of  fraud  arise  if  the  debts  were  incon- 
siderable, or  if,  though  consideral)le,  the  settlement  itself  provides 
for  their  payment,  or  if  they  are  secured  by  mortgages  or  other 
Fraud  presum-  means.^  The  reservation  by  the  husband  of  a  power 
vation'o" power  ^^  revokc  thc  limitations  in  favor  of  the  wife  is  said 
to  revoke;  ^y  Williams  to  be  a  badge  of  fraud  ;^  but  the  con- 
trary is  held  by  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States,  indicating 
that  the  absence  of  such  a  power  is  often  considered  a  badge  of 
and  from  con-  fraud.'*  So,  fraud  may  be  pi^esumed  from  continual 
possession  in  the  husband  after  a  transfer  purporting 
to  be  absolute.^  Where  the  settlement  after  marriage 
is  made  for  a  valuable  consideration,  the  presumption 
of  fraud  fails,  though  the  husband  be  indebted  at  the 
time.^  A  written  agreement  before  marriage  is  a  good 
consideration,  but  not  a  verbal  agreements  A  contract  in  con- 
sideration of  the  settlement  of  existing  differences,  and  the  avoid- 
ance of  future  difhculties  and  dissensions,  or  of  the  return  of  a 
wife  who  is  legally  justified  in  her  absence  from  the  husband,  is 
founded  on  a  valid  consideration.^     In  the  case  of  Lloyd  v.  Ful- 


tinual  posses- 
sion by  tlie 
husband  after 
gi". 

unless  made 
for  a  valuable 
consideration. 


1  Case  V.  Phelps,  39  N.  Y.  164  ;  Town- 
send  V.  Maynard,45  Pa.  St.  198;  Phillips 
V.  Wooster,  8G  N.  Y.  412.  It  matters  not 
as  to  subsequent  creditors  tliat  the  con- 
veyance includes  all  the  husband's  realty, 
and  is  a  large  proportion  in  value  of  all 
his  property :  Thompson  v.  Allen,  103 
Pa.  8t.  44,  48. 

•-  Gridley  v.  Watson.  53  111.  186,  103 
Bridgford  v.  Riddell,  55  111.  261,  267 
Brookbank  v.  Kennard,  41  Ind.  .339 
Stephenson  v.  Donahue,  40  Oh.  St.  184 
White  V.  Bettis,  9  Heisk.  645 

3  Wms.  E.\.  [7-54],  on  the  authority  of 
1  Roper,  Husband  &  Wife,  p.  *31.5. 

i  Jones  V.  Clifton,  101  U.  S.  225,  229. 

5  Moore  v.  Pa-:c,  111  U.  S.  117,  119; 
Putnam  v.  Osgood,  52  N.  H.  148,  153  et 
scq.;  Coolidge  v.  Melvin,  42  N.  H.  510; 
Rothchild  v.  Rowe,  44  Vt.  389.  Where 
real  and  personal  property  were  conveyed, 
it  was  held  that  the  notice  of  the  wife's 
general  ownership,  furnished  by  the  re- 


corded deed,  would  be  such  a  presump- 
tion of  ownership  of  the  personal  prop- 
erty on  the  premises  as  would  reasonably 
lead  any  person  observing  the  husband's 
use  of  the  property  to  conclude  that  he 
was  using  it  as  hers :  Gilligan  v.  Lord,  51 
Conn.  562,  568. 

•>  Barnura  v.  Farthing,  40  How.  Pr. 
25:  DuflFy  v.  Insurance  Co.,  8  W.  &  S. 
413  ;  Medsker  v.  Bonebrake,  108  U.  S.  66, 
73;  Atlantic  Bank  v.  Tavener,  130  Mass. 
407,  410 ;  Bean  v.  Patterson,  122  U.  S. 
496  ;  Dice  i:  Irvin,  110  Ind.  561. 

'  But  not  if  the  settlement  is  for  more 
than  the  agreement  stipulated  :  Saunders 
V.  Ferrill,  1  Ired.  L.  97.  See  Smith  v. 
Allen,  5  Allen,  454  ;  PeifTer  v.  Lytle,  58 
Pa.  St.  386;  Izard  v.  Izard,  1  Bailey  Eq. 
228;  Wood  v.  Savage,  2  Doug.  (Mich.) 
316;  Simpson  v.  Graves,  Riley  Ch.  232, 
237.  But  see,  where  parol  agreement  is 
held  sufficient,  ante,  p.  608,  note  5. 

8  Burkholder's  Appeal,  105 Pa. St.31, 37. 


§  288  THE  wife's  savings.  611 

ton,^  Mr.  Justice  Swayne,  delivcrint^  the  opinion  of  the  Supreme 
Court  of  the  United  States,  lays  down  this  rule  upon  the  subject  of 
post-nuptial  marriage  settlements :  "  Prior  indebtedness  Rule  by  Su- 
is  only  pi-esumptivc,  and  not  conclusive  proof  of  fraud,  of't'iie  UuUed 
and  this  presumption  may  be  explained  and  rebutted,  states. 
Fraud  is  always  a  (piostion  of  fact  with  reference  to  the  intention 
of  the  grantor.     Where  there  is  no  fraud  there  is  no  infirmity  in 
the  deed.     Every  case  depends  upon  its  circumstances,  and  is  to 
be  carefully  scrutinized.     But  the  vital   question   is  always  the 
good  faith  of  the  transaction.     There  is  no  other  test." 

§  288.    The  "Wife's  Savings  from  Separate  Trade,  Pin-money,  Gifts, 
etc.  —  A  wife  may  also  acquire  separate  property  by  carrying  on 
a  business  or  trade  on  her  own  account,  by  permission  Money  saved 
of  the  husband,  either  in  consequence  of  an  express  t^uh^ husband's 
agreement  between  her  and  her  husband  before  the  hCT^at'hfs''^^  ^" 
marriage,  in  which  case  it  will  be  binding  also  against  death, 
creditors,^   or  where  he  consents  during  the  marriage,  in  which 
case  it  will  be  void  against  creditors,  but  binding  on  except  as 
him  and  his  personal  representatives.^     And  the  sav-  husb"ind''^s^ 
ings  of  the  wife  arising  from  her  separate  property,  creditors, 
gifts  from  the  husband  to  the  wife,  pin-money,  and  similar  allow- 
ances to  her,  or  jewels  or  other  things  purchased  by  her  out  of 
her  separate  estate,  belong  to  her,  and  do  not  constitute  assets 
in  the  hands  of  the  husband's  executor  or  administra-  Gift  by  hus- 

./.,  1111  1        band  to  wife 

tor.*     But  to  establish  a  gilt  by  the  husband  to  the  must  be  cstab- 


1  91  U.  S.  479,  485.  R.  Tl.  Co.,  2  Abb.  Pr.  n.  s.  220;  Eddins  i'. 

-  Young    V.    Jones,   9    Humph.   551  ;  Buck,  23  Ark.  507  ,  Peck  v.  Brummagim, 

Young    V.   Gori,    13   Abb.  Pr.    13,   note,  31  Cal.  440 ;  Churchill  v.  Corker,  25  Ga. 

p.  15;  Sanford  v.  Atwood,  44  Conn.  141,  479;  Skillraan  v.  Skillman,  13  N.  J.  Eq. 

143;  see  also  State  v.  Smit,  20  Mo.  App.  40.S  ;    Wells  v.  Treadwell,  28  Miss.  717; 

50,  54.  r)ale   v.   Lincoln,   62   111.  22 ;    Coates   v. 

8  Rogers  v.  Tales,  5  Pa.  St.  154 ;  Gen-  Gorlach,  44  Pa.  St.  43 ,  Vance  v.  Nogle, 

try  V.  MeReynolds,  12  Mo.  .533  ;  Jones  r.  70  Pa.  St.  176;  Butterficld  v.  Stanton,  44 

Heid,   12   W.    Va.   350    (not  deciding  as  Miss.  15  ;  Pinncy  r.  Fellows,  15  Vt.  525 ; 

to  the  validity  of  such  an  agreement  as  Wood  v.  Warden,  20  Ohio,  518 ;  Ilutton 

against  creditors),  365.  r.  Ilutton.  3  Pa.  St.  100  :  Resor  v.  Resor, 

■!  Barron  v.  Barron,  24  Vt.  375 ;  Rich-  9  Ind.  347  ;  Thompson  v.  Mills,  39  Ind. 

ardson  v.  Merrill,  32  Vt.  27  ;    Nelson  v.  528  ;  Bent  v.  Bent,  44  Vt.  555 ;  Goree  v. 

HoUins.  9  Baxt.  553  :  Miller  v.  William-  Walthall,  44  Ala.  161.    An  agreement  be- 

son,  5  Md.  219 ;  Rusii  v.  Vought,  55  Pa.  tween    husband    and  wife,  whereby  the 

St.  437  ;  Towers  v.  Hagner,  3  Whart.  48,  former  receives  her  personal  property  to 

56  et  seq. :  Yardlej'  v.  Raub,  5  Whart.  117  ;  hold  as  trustee  for  her  minor  cliildren,  is 

Kee  V.  Vasser,  2  Ired.  Eq.  553;  Merritt  enforceable  in  equity  :  Ilammons  r   Ren- 

t'    Lyon,  3  Barb.  110,  Rawson  v.  Penn.  frow,  84  Mo.  332. 


612  PROPERTY   IN    POSSESSION.  §  288 

lished  by  clear  wifc,  thcre  miist  1)C  clcar  and  incontrovertible  proof, 
testimony.  ^^^^  nothing  Icss  than  an  irrevocable  gift,  either  to 
some  person  in  trust  or  by  some  clcar  and  distinct  act,  will  do.^ 
Property  put  Stocks  purchased  by  the  husband  in  the  name  of  him- 
ioiiIt'name\if"  ^clf  and  his  wife,  money  loaned  out  on  securities 
husband  and      taken  in  the  name  of  husband  and  wife,  and  property 

wife  goes  to  _  .  . 

iier,  and  not  to  purchased  in  their  joint  names  or  in  the  wife's  name, 
administrator,  will  all  be  prcsumcd,  in  cases  clcar  of  fraud,  to  have 
been  intended  as  an  advancement  and  provision  for  the  wife,  and 
on  surviving  him  she  will  be  entitled  thereto,  as  against  his  ex- 
ecutors or  administrators,  if  he  has  not  aliened  them  during 
his  lifetime.^     Pin-money,  being  intended  not  for  the 

Pin-mouev  .  .pi.pi  i  -i 

goes  to  her  to  sustcntation  of  the  Wile,  but  for  Iier  dress  and  orna- 
vear-saTi'ow-      mcuts    iu    a   station    suitable   to   the   degree   of    the 


ance 


husband,  cannot  be  claimed  against  the  husl)and's  ex- 
ecutor or  administrator  for  a  period  farther  back  than  one  year's 
But  on  her  allowaucc,  uor  where  the  wife  dies  can  it  be  claimed 
hefrepreslnta-  by  hcr  representatives  at  all.  Where  it  is  settled 
tives  at  all.  upon  the  wifc  by  an  ante-nuptial  agreement,  it  is  pay- 
able to  her  as  against  creditors  ;  but  her  savings  out  of  pin-money, 
or  other  allowances  by  the  husband  not  in  pursuance  of  an  ante- 

1  George  v.  Spencer,  2  Md.  CIi.  353;  to  lier  administrator,  if  in  hername  alone  : 
Woodson  V.  Pool,  19  Mo.  340;  Manny  v.  Leland  v.  Wliitaker,  23  Mich.  324.  If  the 
Rlxford,  44  111.  129  ;  Jennings  v.  Davis,  hnshand  purchase  land  with  his  wife's 
31  Conn.  134  ;  Herr's  Appeal,  5  W.  &  S.  money,  and  without  her  knowledge  or 
494  ;  Crissman  v.  Crissman,  23  Mich.  217  ;  consent  takes  the  deed  in  his  own  name, 
Woodford  r.  Stephens,  51  Mo.  443;  Trow-  and  afterward  sell  such  land,  she  is  en- 
bridge  V.  Holden,  58  Me.  117  ;  Ilayt  v.  titled  to  the  amount  received  therefor. 
Parks.  39  Conn.  357;  Williams's  Appeal,  And  if  he  buy  land  with  money  partly  hers 
106  Pa.  St.  116.  Where  a  wife  deposited  and  partly  his  own,  taking  the  deed  in  his 
money  in  a  bank,  mostly  the  proceeds  of  own  name  without  her  knowledge  or  con- 
her  own  earnings,  in  the  absence  of  evi-  sent,  she  is  entitled  to  recover  from  the 
dence  showing  the  same  to  have  been  estate  the  amount  so  invested  •  Dayton 
done  with  the  consent  of  the  husband,  or  v.  Fisher,  34  Ind.  356.  If,  on  the  other 
other  evidence  of  a  gift,  he  is  entitled  to  iiand,  tiie  husband  receives  the  rents  from 
the  money  at  her  death  .  McDermott's  his  wife's  separate  estate,  the  circum- 
Appeal,  106  Pa.  St.  358.  But  her  sepa-  stances  showing  that  the  wife  did  not  in- 
rate  title  to  personalty  may  be  established  tend  to  charge  the  husband,  and  that  he 
by  words,  acts,  and  conduct,  as  well  as  by  did  not  intend  to  account,  then  the  courts 
writing:  McCoy  v.  Hyatt,  80  Mo.  1.30;  cannot,  after  his  death,  charge  his  estate  ; 
Bettes  V.  Magoon,  85  Mo.  580;  Armitage  Bristor  v.  Bristor.  !'3  Ind.  281.  See  also 
V.  Mace,  96  N.  Y.  538.  Adams  v.  Brackett,  5  Met.  (Mass.)  280; 

2  Draper  v.  Jackson,  16  Mass.  480  ;  Fowler  v.  Rice,  31  Ind.  258  ;  Bergey's 
Phelps  V.  Phelps,  20  Pick.  5-56  ;  Sanford  Appeal,  60  Pa.  St.  408;  Sawyers  ;>  Baker, 
V.  Sanford,  5  Lans.  486,  495;  61  Barb.  77  Ala.  461  ;  Gainus  v.  Cannon,  42  Ark. 
293,     And  after  the  wife's  death  they  go  503. 


§  289  THE  wife's  pakaphernalia.  G13 

nuptial  contract,  as  well  as  jewels  so  purcluised  by  tlic  wife  out  of 
them,  will  bo  assets  to  pay  the  husband's  debts,  although  pro- 
tected from  voluntary  claims. ^  IJut  in  the  United  States  there  is 
little  or  no  occasion  for  the  application  of  any  rules  concerning 
pin-money  ;  this  subject,  as  well  as  that  of  paraphernalia,'-^  is  gen- 
erally merged  in,  and  governed  by,  the  statutory  provisions  for 
the  ijrotection  of  married  women  and  the  support  of  the  family 
upon  the  death  of  the  husband.'^ 

§289.  The  Wife's  Paraphernalia. — Paraphernalia  of  the  wife 
include  her  wearing  ai)ijarel  and  ornaments,  suitable  to  her  sta- 
tion in  life.  It  is  held  in  England  that  what  constitutes  i)ara- 
phernalia  is  a  question  to  be  decided  by  the  court,  depending  upon 
the  rank  and  fortune  of  the  parties ;  and  the  books  are  full  of 
cases  distinguishing  between  the  nature  and  value  of  the  jewels, 
ornaments,  and  garments  as  constituting,  or  not,  the  wife's  para- 
phernalia.* In  America,  as  with  regard  to  the  analogous  subjects 
of  pin-money  and  other  allowances  by  the  husband,  the  statutes  of 
most  States  contain  specific,  and  in  some  cases  very  minute,  pro- 
visions on  the  rights  of  the  wife  and  widow  to  her  paraphernalia, 
which  are  considered,  in  their  connection  with  the  estates  of 
deceased  persons,  in  a  separate  chapter.^  At  common  law,  gifts 
as  paraphernalia  arc  distinguishable  from  gifts  by  the  husband  for 
the  wife's  separate  use  in  this,  that  she  may  dispose  of  the  latter 
absolutely,  but  can  neither  give  away  nor  bequeath  the  former  by 
her  will ;  and  that  the  husband  may  sell  or  give  them  away  dur- 
ing his  lifetime,  but  cannot  during  her  life  dispose  of  them  by 
will.^  So  they  are  liable,  at  common  law,  and  in  States  in  which 
they  are  not  secured  to  the  wife  by  statutory  enactment,  for  the 
husband's  debts,  but  not  to  satisfy  the  husband's  legacies;  and 
where  the  creditor  has  a  double  fund,  he  has  no  right  to  subject 
the  widow's  paraphernalia  to  the  satisfaction  of  his  debt ;  but  all 
other  property,  whether  real  or  personal,  is  to  be  first  applied  to 

1  See  the  case  of  Digby  v.  Howard,  4  25  Ind.  229,  231  ;  Rawson  v.  Penn.  R.  R. 
Sim.  588,  for  a  discussion  of  tliis  subject ;  Co.,  2  Abb.  Pr.  n.  s.  220  ;  Savajje  v. 
the  decision  of  tlie  Vice-Chancellor,  allow-  O'Npil.  U  N.  Y.  298  ;  Beard  c.  Dedolph, 
ing  tlie  wife's  representatives  to  recover  2'.)  Wis.  136;  'league  y.  Downs,  69  N.  0. 
aLjainst  tlie  iiusband's  estate,  was  reversed  280. 

by  tlie  House  of  Lords,  8  Blish,  n.  s.  224,  ^  See  Wms.  Ex.  and  quotations  from 

2(59.     See   also   Miller   r.   Williamson,  5  decided  cases,  pp.  [763]-t770]. 
Md.  219,  2.36.  °  Antp,  ch.  ix. 

2  Post,  §  289.  ^  Wms.  Ex.  [TOG],  and  authorities. 

3  Atite,  ch.  ix.,    Clawson   v.  Ciawson, 


61-1  PROPERTY   IN   POSSESSION.  §  289 

the  payment  of  debts.^  And  where  the  husband  has  pledged  his 
wife's  parapliernalia,  the  widow  has  a  riglit  to  have  them  re- 
deemed by  the  executor  or  administrator.'^  Nor  are  jewels  and 
other  gifts  in  the  nature  of  paraphernalia  by  third  persons,  for 
her  separate  use,  liable  for  the  husband's  debts.^ 

1  Ibid.,  p.  [767]  et  seo.  3  See  ante,  §  288. 

'■^  Graham  v.  Londonderry,  3  Atk.  393. 


§  290  SURVIVAL    OF    ACriONS    AT    COMMON    LAW.  615 


CHAPTER   XXXI. 

TITLE   OP^    EXECUTORS    AND    ADMINISTRATORS   TO    CHOSES    IN    ACTION. 

§  290.    Survival  of  Actions  at  Common  Law.  —  The  ancicnt  rule 
of  the  common  law,  Actio  personalis   moritur  cum  persona,  left 
only  such  actions  to  be  brought  by  the  executor  or  c„„„„on  j^w 
admhiistrator  as  were  founded  on  some  obligation  or  ^'^[?J,^;  *^'j,f 
duty,  includino;  debts  of  all  descriptions,  with  respect  foumiwi  on 

•'  '  "  •       i.r  1       obligation  or 

to  which  the  executor  or  administrator  is  the  only  duty  die  with 
representative  of  the  deceased  recognized  by  law,  so  '®  ''*^'""'''"" 
that  no  provision  in  a  contract,  nor  any  stipulation  or  agreement, 
can  transfer  to  another  his  exclusive  rights  derived  from  such 
representation.!  Actions  for  injuries  to  the  person  or  property 
of  another,  for  which  damages  only  could  be  recovered  (tort,  mal- 
feasance, misfeasance),  or  arising  ex  delicto  (trespass  de  bonis 
asportatis,  trover,  false  imprisonment,  assault,  battery,  slander, 
deceit,  diverting  a  watercourse,  obstructing  lights,  escape,  etc.),  in 
which  the  declaration  at  common  law  imputes  tort  to  person  or  prop- 
erty, and  the  plea  is  not  guilty,  are  said  to  die  with  the  person  bi/ 
or  to  whom  the  wrong  was  done.  This  rule  was  modified  by  a  series 
of  English  statutes,^  notably  that  of  4  Edw.  III.  c.  7,  Modified  by 
giving  an  action  in  favor  of  a  personal  representative  statutes. 
for  injuries  to  personal  property,  and  3  &  4  Wm.  IV.  c.  42,  §  3, 
giving  an  action  in  favor  of  personal  representatives  for  injuries 
to  real  estate,  and  against  personal  representatives  for  injuries  to 
real  or  personal  estate ;  so  that  actions  are  now  maintainable  by 
and  against  executors  and  administrators  in  all  cases  where  the 
value  of  personal  property  has  been  reduced  by  injury  thereto, 
whatever  form  of  action  may  be  necessary  to  secure  the  remedy, 
and  for  injury  to  the  real  estate,  and  the  damages  recovered  de- 
clared to  be  personal  estate.^     The  most  important  alteration  of 

1  Wms.  Ex.  [785]  ef  seq.     "  The  true  tion  " :    Stanley  '•.  Vnirel,  9  Mo.  App.  08, 

test  as  to  survival  against  an  executor  100 ;  Cregin  v.  Brooklyn  Co.,  83  N.  Y,. 

was  whether  the  cause  of  action  had  its  505,  597. 

basis  in  a  property  right,  and  necessarily  '^  Mentioned  in  Wms.  Ex.  [790]  ft  stq. 

involved  the  breach  of  a  contract  obliga-  ^  Wentworth,  in  his  work  on  Execu- 


G16  TITLE   TO    CHOSES    IN    ACTION.  §  291 

the  law  on  this  subject  is  that  of  9  &  10  Vict.  c.  93,  amended  by 
27  &  28  Vict.  c.  95,  giving  an  action  to  executoi's  and  adminis- 
trators for  the  death  of  one  killed  through  the  wrongfid  act, 
neglect,  or  default  of  another.  Similar  statutes  have  been  enacted 
in  most  of  the  Amei'ican  States,  and  are  a  fruitful  source  of  law- 
suits against  railroad  and  other  corporations.^ 

§  291.  Reason  of  the  Rule.  —  The  accurate  and  logical  import 
of  the  rule  that  actio  personalis  moritur  cum  persona,  seems  to  be, 
that  for  injuries  to  the  person  alone,  not  affecting  property  of  any 
kind,  the  remedy  ceases  upon  the  death  of  the  doer  or  sufferer. 
Legislative  enactments,  both  in  England  and,  with  few  if  any 
exceptions,  in  America,  spring  from  a  recognition  of  the  maxim 
in  this  sense,  and  the  judiciary  in  both  countries,  when  not  con- 
trolled by  statutory  enactment  to  the  contrary,  is  guided  by  it 
in  its  rulings.  The  law  exacts  reparation  from  the  wrongdoer, 
whether  the  wrong  affects  the  person  or  the  property  of  another ; 
it  makes  compensation  by  a  judgment  in  favor  of  the  person 
aggrieved  against  the  aggressor,  in  a  sum  of  money  deemed  to  be 
the  equivalent  of  the  injury  suffered.  But,  under  the  artificial 
common  law  system  respecting  the  devolution  of  property  upon 
the  owner's  death,  there  can  be  no  reparation  for  a  wrong  done 
(the  remedy  for  which  is  an  action  ex  delicto')  where  one  of  the 
parties  is  dead  ;  "  for,"  says  Blackstone,'-^  "  neither  the  executors 
of  the  plaintiff  have  received,  nor  those  of  the  defendant  have 
committed,  in  their  own  personal  capacity,  any  manner  of  wrong 
or  injury."  Actions  arising  ex  contractu  were  allowed  to  survive 
both  to  and  against  executors  and  administrators,  "  being  indeed 
rather  actions  against  the  property  than  the  person,  in  which  the 
executors  have  now  the  same  interest  that  their  testator  had 
before."  ^  So  Lord  Ellenborough  :  "  Executors  and  administra- 
tors are  the  representatives  of  the  temporal  property,  that  is,  the 
debts  and  goods  of  the  deceased,  but  not  of  their  wrongs,  except 

tors,  thus  expresses   his  opinion  that  an  scythe  come  as  a  midwife  to  help  her  de- 
executor  ouprht  to  have  his  action  on  the  livery,  if  then,  hy  the  iiasty  death  of  the 
statute  of  Edward  III.  for  fjrass  consumed  owner  before  action  brought,  this  great 
by  the   cattle  of  a    trespasser:    "When  trespass  should  be  dispunishable,  it  were 
meadow  ground  which  yearly  conceiveth  contrary,  as  methinks,  to  the  purpose  of 
(Sol  sine  nomine  genprat  horbam)  shall  be  said   statute,   and   a   great  defect  in   the 
ready  to  be  delivered  of  her  burthen,  if  a  law."     Wentw.  Ex.  167  (14th  ed.). 
stranger  put  in  a  herd  of  cattle  which  ^  See  po>>t,  §  295. 
swallow  up  and  tread  down  this  fruit  of  ^  3  Bla.  Conim.  302. 
her   womb    before    the  nunver  with   his  ^  Ibid. 


§  291  REASON    OF   THE    RULE.  617 

where  these  wrong's  operate  to  the  temporal  iujuiy  of  tin;  personal 
estate.  .  .  .  Although  marriage  may  be  regarded  as  a  temporal 
advantage  to  the  party  as  far  as  respects  the  personal  comforts, 
still  it  cannot  be  regarded  as  an  increase  of  the  individual  trans- 
missible estate.  .  .  .  Loss  of  marriage  may,  under  circumstances, 
occasion  a  strict  pecuniary  loss  to  a  woman,  but  it  docs  not  neces- 
sarily do  so."  1  In  this  view  no  action  lies  against  or  by  an 
executor  or  administrator  for  a  tort  committed  to  one's  person, 
feelings,  or  reputation.'-^ 

But  an  injury  to  property  involves  a  wrong  to  others  beside  the 
immediate  sufferer,  that  is  to  say,  to  all  who  have,  from  their 
relation  to  the  owner,  an  interest  in  the  property;  and  these, 
whether  personal  representatives,  heirs,  or  devisees,  are  entitled 
to  and  have  their  remedy.  Thus,  as  heretofore  mentioned,'^  per- 
sonal actions  survive  in  all  cases  arising  ex  contractu,  and  by  Eng- 
lish statutes  this  is  extended  to  actions  for  injury  to  personal  or 
real  estate.'^  So,  although  the  right  to  sue  on  a  covenant  real 
descends  to  the  heirs  of  the  covenantee,  or  goes  to  his  assigns,  to 
the  exclusion  of  his  executor  or  administrator,  yet  if  such  covenant 
had  been  broken  during  the  lifetime  of  the  covenantee  his  execu- 
tor or  administrator  might  sue  upon  it ;  ^  but,  on  the  other  hand, 
though  there  may  have  been  a  formal  breach  during  the  ancestor's 
lifetime,  yet,  if  the  substantial  damage  has  taken  place  since  his 
death,  the  real  and  not  the  personal  representative  is  the  proper 

^  Cliamberhiin  v.  Williamson,  2  M.  &  away  a  servant :    Huff   v.   Watkins,  20 

Selw.  408.     See  also  Finlay  v.  Ciiirney,  S.  C.  477. 
L.  K.  20  Q.  B.  Div.  494,  498  ;   Sawyer  v.  3  ^„^g_  §  OQO. 

Concord  Railroad,  58  N.  H.  517  ;  Jenkins  *  The  object  of  these  statutes  to  secure 

V.  French,  58  N.  H.  532.  the   remedy    in    tliis    sense   is   generally 

2  As    for    assault,    trespass,    battery,  expressed  in  the  preamble,  e.  g-  :  "  And 

slander,  seduction  of  a  daughter,  breach  whereas  there  is  no  remedy  provided  by 

of  jjromise  of  marriage    (unless   special  law  for  injuries  to  the  real  estate  of  any 

damages    be    alleged  :     Chamberlain    v  person    deceased,  committed   during  his 

Williams,  supra),  or  like  wrongs  to  the  lifetime,  nor  for  certain  wrongs  d()ne  by 

feelings  :    Broom's   L.    M.  *912  ;    3   Bla.  a  person  deceased  in  his  lifetime  to  an- 

Comm.  302  ;  Clarke  v.  McClelland,  9  Pa.  other,   respecting  iiis  property,   personal 

St.  128;  or  for  the  felonious  or  negligent  or  real,  for  remedy  be  it  enacted,"  &e.  : 

killing  of  a  husband,  father,  or  other  rela-  3&4  Wm.  IV.  c.  42,  §  2.     It  was  held, 

live  or   person:  Wyatt  v.   Williams,   43  even  before  the  enactment  of  this  statute, 

N.  H.  102, 105,  with  numerous  authorities  ;  that  trespass  de  bonis  asportatis  lay  by  an 

or  for  injuries  affecting  the  life  and  health  executor  for  thecuttingandcarryingaway 

of  the   deceased,   arising  out  of  the  un-  of  corn:  Emerson  v.  Amell,  Freem.  22; 

skilfulness     of      medical     practitioners  :  and  for  cutting  and  carrying  away  trees  : 

Vittum  ('.  Oilman,  48  N.  H.  410;  Jenkins  Williams  v.  Breedon,  1  IJos.  &  Pul.  329. 
V.  Frenoh,  58  N.  H.  532  ;  or  for  enticing  ^  Com.  Dig.  tit.  Covenant,  13.  1. 


618  TITLE   TO    CHOSES    IN    ACTION.  §  292 

plaintiff.^  On  this  theory,  too,  the  rule  is  grounded  that  no  action 
ex  delicto  can  be  sustained  against  an  executor  or  administrator 
unless  the  estate  in  his  hands  was  benefited  by  the  tort;^  and  the 
statute  of  4  Edward  III.  c.  7,  gives  a  remedy  to  the  executor  of 
the  person  injured,  but  does  not  extend  to  the  representatives  of 
the  wrongdoer.3 

§  292.  American  Statutes  regulating  the  Survival  of  Actions.  — 
The  tendency  of  legislation  in  America,  wherever  it  diverges  from 
the  common  law  rule  above  mentioned,  is  uniformly  in  the  direc- 
tion of  increasing  the  liability  of  tortfeasors  and  their  estates, 
and  correspondingly  augmenting  the  authority  of  executors  and 
administrators  to  maintain  actions  for  injuries  to  the  person  or 
property  of  their  deceased  testators  or  intestates.*  Thus  actions 
are  expressly  given,  both  to  and  against  executors  and  administra- 
tors, for  replevin,  for  injuries  to  the  person  (except  libel  and  slan- 
der), for  the  detention  or  conversion  of  personal  property,  against 
officers  for  misfeasance,  malfeasance,  or  nonfeasance  either  of 
themselves  or  their  deputies,  and  in  all  cases  of  fraud  or  deceit, 
in  Illinois,^  Maine,^  Massachusetts,'  Ohio,*^  Rhode  Island,^  and 
Vermont.i*^     All  actions  at  law  whatsoever,  except  for  slander, 

1  VV^ms.  Ex.  [8031  et  seq.  damages  as  the  deceased   party,   whom 

2  People  V.  Gibbs,  9  Wend.  29,  34 ;  they  represent,  may  have  suffered  in  his 
Cravatli  v.  Flympton,  13  Mass.  454  ;  lifetime,  eitlier  in  his  person  or  his  prop- 
Wilbur  V.  Gilmore,  21  Pick.  250,  252  ;  erty,  by  reason  of  tlie  tortious  or  other 
Osborn  v.  Bell,  SDenio,  370,  376 ;  Higgiiis  acts  of  any  person,  in  the  same  manner 
V.  Breen,  9  Mo.  497,  500.  as  the  party  injured  might  have  done  if 

3  Wheatley  v.  Lane,  1  Saund.  (5th  Am.  living  ";  May,  J.,  delivering  the  opinion 
from  last  London  edition)  216  a,  note  (1),  in  Hooper  v.  Gorham,  45  Me.  209,  212. 
by    Mr.    Serjeant    Williams  ;    Coker   v.  5  Rev.  St.  1885,  p.  247,  §  123. 
Crozier,  5  Ala.  369  ;  Daniel,  J.,  in  Hen-  6  The  statute  mentions  replevin,  tro- 
shaw  >:.  Miller,  17  How.  (U.  S.)  212,220.  ver,  assault  and  battery,  trespass,  case, 

*  "  The  ancient  strictness  of  the  rule  petitions  for  and   actions  of  review,  in 

has  been  constantly  giving  way  before  a  addition  to  common  law   remedies-,    St. 

more  enlightened  civilization,  and  a  more  1883,  ch.  87,  §  8. 

full  and  perfect  development  of  the  prin-  ^  Pub.  St.  1882,  ch.  165,  §  1. 

ciples  of  natural  justice.     Judicial  exposi-  ^  Mentioning  actions  for  mesne  profits, 

tions  of  the  statutes,   which  have  been  for  injuries  to  real  or  personal  property, 

passed  touching  the  survivorship  of  ac-  for  deceit  or  fraud  :  Rev.  St.  1880,  §  4975, 

tions  and  causes  of  action,  seem  to  have  »  Waste,    replevin,    trover,    trespass, 

been  made  in  the  same  liberal  spirit  which  case  ;  but  allowing  neither  vindictive  or 

has  led  to   the  various  enactments.      If  exemplary     damages,   nor    damages   for 

the  language  of  the  statute  will  allow  it,  outraged  feelings  of   the  injured  party: 

no  reason  is  perceived  why  such  a  con-  Pub.  St.  1882,  ch.  204,  §  8  e«  seq.     Eject- 

struction  should  not  be  adopted  as  will  ment  survives  to  and  against  personal  or 

give  to  executors  and  administrators,  for  real   representative,    as    the    right    may 

the  benefit  of  heirs  or  creditors  as  the  descend;    lb.,  §  11. 

law  may  require,  authority  to  institute  or  i""  Ejectmentor  other  possessory  action, 

maintain  suits  for  the   recovery  of  such  replevin,  trover,  trespass,  case-,   Rev.  St, 


§  292 


AMERICAN   STATUTES. 


619 


libel,  and  trespass,  and  to  recover  real  estate,  survive  to  and 
against  the  personal  representatives  in  lowa,^  Kentucky ,2  Mary- 
land,^ Mississippi,"*  and  Pennsylvania.^  The  statutes  enumerate 
the  kinds  of  actions  and  the  circumstances  under  which  they  may 
be  brought  by  and  against  executors  and  administrators  in  respect 
of  the  rights  and  liabilities  of  their  testators  and  intestates,  differ- 
ing in  slight  degree  from  the  rules  above  mentioned,  in  Alabama,*^ 
Arkansas,"  California,^  Delaware,^  Kansas,^*^  Missouri, '^  New  Jer- 
sey ,i-  New  York,!-'^  North  Carolina,^^  South  Carolina,!^  Yirginia,^*^ 
and  West  Virginia.^''  The  statutes  of  Indiana  ^^  and  Oregon  ^'-^  an- 
nounce the  rule  literally :  "  A  cause  of  action  arising  out  of  an 
injury  to  the  person  dies  with  the  person  of  either  party,"  except- 
ing cases  in  which  an  action  is  given  for  injuries  resulting  in 


1880,  §  2133 ;  and  for  a  bodily  hurt  or 
injury  where  the  party  dies  pending  suit : 
§  2134. 

1  With  no  exception  whatever  :  Code, 
1886,  §  2525.  Special  provision  that  the 
civil  remedy  does  not  merge  in  the  crim- 
inal, but  may  be  enforced  in  addition  to 
the  punishment :  §  2526. 

2  Excepting  also  assault  and  battery, 
criminal  conversation,  and  so  much  of 
action  for  malicious  prosecution  as  is  in- 
tended to  compensate  for  personal  injury: 
Gen.  St.  1887,  p.  231,  §  1. 

3  Specially  mentioning  actions  for 
illegal  arrest,  false  imprisonment,  and  for 
violating  certain  articles  of  the  declaration 
of  rights  and  the  provisions  of  the  habeas 
corpus  act  as  surviving :  Rev.  Code,  1878, 
p.  458,  §§  146,  147. 

*  All  personal  actions  without  any  ex- 
ception whatever,  at  law  or  in  equity  : 
Rev.  Code,  1880,  §  2078. 

^  Excepting  for  wrongs  done  to  the  per- 
son :  Bright.  Purd.  Dig.  1883,  p.  528,  §  106. 

6  Code,  1886,  §§  2600,  2601  :  All  actions 
upon  contract,  express  or  implied,  all  per- 
sonal actions  except  for  injuries  to  the 
person  or  reputation,  and  real  actions  for 
title  or  possession  of  lands  in  which  per- 
sonal representatives  have  an  interest. 

■^  For  wrongs  done  to  the  person  or 
property  except  slander  and  libel ;  eject- 
ment for  lands  in  possession  of  others 
upon  which  the  decedent  has  made  im- 
provements under  claim  of  possession  by 
virtue  of  pre-emption  or  entry  in  the  land 
office  :  Dig.  1884,  §§  5223,  2628,  2629. 

*  For  waste,  conversion,  trespass,  ami 


actions  whicii  deceased  had  against  a 
surviving  partner:  Code  Civ.  Pr.  §§  1582- 
1585. 

9  For  all  personal  actions  except  as- 
sault and  battery,  defamation,  malicious 
prosecution  or  injury  to  the  person,  or 
upon  penal  statutes :  Laws  as  Amended, 
1874,  p.  643,  §  2. 

1'^  In  addition  to  actions  surviving  at 
common  law,  actions  for  mesne  profits, 
injuries  to  the  person,  to  real  or  personal 
estate,  and  for  deceit  or  fraud  :  Dassler's 
Comp.  L.  1885,  ch.  80,  §  420. 

11  For  all  wrongs  done  to  the  property, 
rights,  or  interests  of  another  (except 
slander,  libel,  assault  and  battery,  false 
imprisonment,  or  actions  on  the  case  for 
injuries  to  the  person)  :  Rev.  St.  1879, 
§§  96,  97. 

1-  For  trespass  to  the  person  or  prop- 
erty :  Rev.  1877,  p.  390,  §  4. 

1^  All  actions  on  contract  and  to  re- 
cover debts  and  effects,  and  trespass  to 
personal  or  real  property  :  Banks  &  Br., 
7th  ed..  p  2307,  §  2  et  srq. 

i-*  All  actions  except  slander  (but  slan- 
der of  title  survives),  libel,  false  imprison- 
ment, assault  and  battery,  or  other  injuries 
to  the  person  not  resulting  in  death,  and 
cases  where  tiie  relief  could  not  be  en- 
joyed, or  granting  it  would  be  nugatory 
after  death  :  Code,  1883,  §  1490  et  seq., 
§  1497. 

15  Rev.  St.  1873,  p  507,  §  6. 

10  Code,  1887,  §§  2655,  26-56. 

1"  Code,  1887,  ch.  85,  §  19  et  seq. 
18  Rev.  St.  1888,  §  282. 
I'J  Code,  1887,  §  369. 


620  TITLE   TO   CHOSES    IN    ACTION.  §  293 

death,  and  in  Indiana  actions  for  seduction  and  false  imprison- 
ment ;  all  other  causes  of  action  survive,  except  actions  for  breach 
of  promise  to  marry.  In  Minnesota^  every  cause  of  action  sur- 
vives, whether  arising  out  of  contract  or  not,  excei)t  for  injuries 
resulting  in  death.  In  Georgia  no  action  for  a  tort  abates  by 
reason  of  the  death  of  either  party,  where  the  wrongdoer  received 
any  benefit  from  the  tort  complained  of,^  but  the  common  law  rule 
as  to  the  survival  of  actions  is  not  changed.^  So  in  New  Hamp- 
shire.* In  Wisconsin,  actions  to  recover  personal  property,  for 
converting  same,  for  assault  and  battery,  false  imprisonment,  or 
other  damage  to  the  person,  trespass  de  bo7iis  asportatis,  and  for 
damages  to  real  and  personal  property,  survive,  in  addition  to 
those  surviving  at  common  law.^ 

§  293.  Actions  for  Injuries  to  Property. — It  results  from  the 
preceding  sections,  and  from  the  general  rule  that  personal  prop- 
erty descends  to  executors  and  administrators,  that  they  alone  can 
sue  and  be  sued  upon  all  personal  contracts.  The  same  principle 
extends  to  the  recovery  of  specific  personal  property  belonging  to 
the  decedent,  upon  whose  death  the  legal  title  vests  at  once  in  the 
personal  representative ;  and  to  the  recovery  of  its  value  if  it  has 
been  converted,  or  of  damages  for  injury  thereto.  This  has  been 
Trover,  tres-  held  to  includc  actious  in  trover,*^  replevin,'  trespass,^ 
rTpfevin**^'  casc,^  debt  for  conversion,!*^  and,  a  fortiori,  for  a  con- 
conversion,  version  after  the  intestate's  death,  though  before  the 
appointment  of  the  administrator.^^  So,  also,  an  action  against  a 
False  return.  sheriff  for  a  false  returUj^^  and  an  action  by  a  husband 
Loss  of  wife's  against  a  carrier  for  the  loss  of  his  wife's  services  and 
services.  expcuscs  paid  in  consequence  of  injui'ies  received  by 

her  through  the  carrier's  negligence ;  ^^  but   all  right  of  action 

1  St.  1878,  p.  825,  §  1.  ^  Snider  v.  Croy,  2  Jolin.  227. 

2  Code,  1882,  §  29G7.  ^  Aldrich  v.  Howard,  8  R.  I.  125. 

3  Bravv'ner  v.  Sterdevant,  9  Ga.  69.  See  ^"^  Elrod  v.  Alexander,  4  Heisk.  ?.42,  ;^50. 
Thompson  v.  Central  Railroad,  (50  Ga.  120.  "  Hutcliins  v.  Adams,  8  Me.  174  ;  Hol- 

4  Sawyer  v.  Concord  Railroad,  58  N.  H.  brook  v.  White,  13  Wend.  591. 

517,  519.  1-  Jewett    v.   Weaver,    10    Mo.     234 ; 

5  Laws,  1887,  ch.  280.  Paine  v.  Ulmer,  7  Mass.  317;  HoU.rook 

6  Manwell  v.  Briggs,  17  Vt.   176,  181  ;  v.  White,  13  Wend.  591.     But  see  infra, 
Eubanks  v.  Dobbs,  4  Ark.  173  ;  Smith  v.  eases  holding  the  contrary,  §  294. 
Grove,   12  Mo.  51 ;  Parrott  v.  Dubignon,  ^^  Cregin  v.  Brooklyn  Co.,  75  N.  Y.  192, 
T.  U.  P.  Charlt.  261 ;  Jahns  v.  Nolting,  29  196  ;  per  Simpson,  J.,  in  Eden  v.  Railroad, 
Cal.  507,  511.  14  B.  Mon.  204,  206.     So  an  action  by  the 

"  Reist  i).  Heilbrenner,  11  Serg.  &  R.  fatherforinjurif^s  to  his  minor  son  :  James 
131 ;  Halleck  v.  Mixer,  16  Cal.  574.  v.  Christy,  i8  Mo.  162. 


§  293  ACTIONS    FOR    INJURIES    TO    rilOPKIlTV.  621 

for  the  loss   of   her    society  and    its  comfort   to    liini    dies  with 
him.^ 

The  reason  of  the  rule  holds  good  also  with  respect  to  cove- 
nants affecting  the  realty,  but  not  running  with  the  covpnantA  not 
land,  as  well  as  to  real  covenants  running  with  the  [Xl"°  ^'''^^ 
land  for  all  breaches  during  the  decedent's  lifetime,  R,eachosof 
occasioning  special  damages.  Thus  it  is  said  that  [i';rH,'|r,i"!'e"'^ 
tlicre  is  a  distinction  between  a  covenant  of  seisin  and  ''^■"^'*  ''^''• 
right  to  convey,  which  are  personal  covenants  not  running  with 
the  land,  because,  if  not  true,  there  is  a  breach  at  once  which 
constitutes  a  chose  in  action  descending  to  the  executor;  and  the 
covenant  of  warranty  and  for  quiet  enjoyment,  which  are  ])ro- 
spective,  there  being  no  breach  until  ouster  or  eviction,  wherefore 
they  run  with  the  land  conveyed,  descending  to  the  heirs.^  For 
this  reason  the  action  for  breach  of  covenant  of  seisin,  or  of  the 
right  to  convey,  docs  not  lie  by  the  heirs,  but  nmst  be  brought  by 
the  executor  or  administrator.^  So  the  administrator  may  sue  for 
a  breach  of  covenant  to  convey  land,*  maintain  replevin  for  trees 
wrongfvilly  cut  from  the  testator's  land  during  his  lifetime,^  and 
recover  damages  for  trespass  committed  upon  the  land  before  the 
death  of  the  owner,^  even  in  an  action  on  the  case.''  Where  the 
estate  of  the  deceased  in  the  land  was  not  a  freehold,  so  that  it 
descends  as  a  chattel,  the  executor  or  administrator  may  self- 
evidently  bring  action  of  forcible  entry  and  detainer  for  an  entry ,^ 
or  sue  for  a  trespass  committed  thereon,  either  before  or  after  the 
decedent's  death,^  or  sell  or  otherwise  dispose  of  the  right. ^"^  And 
while  it  is  clear,  that,  for  any  injury  to  lands  descending  to  heirs 
or  devisees  after  the  ancestor's  or  testator's  death,  the  heirs  or 
devisees  alone  can  sue,^!  and  that  the  executor  or  administrator 

1  Cresin   '•.    Brooklyn    Co.,  83   N.  Y.  r.  Wilson,   1   Md-  102;  Ilaigbt  r.  Green, 

595,  5',i7."  lOCal.  113,  117. 

■2  4  Kent  Com.  *472;  Hamilton  y.  Wil-  ''  Howcott  v.  Warren,  7  Tred.   L.  20; 

son,  4  John.  72.  Howcott  v.  Coffield,  7   Led.  L    24  ;  Ten 

3  Hamilton  v.  Wilson,  .vq)ra ;  Kellogrg  Eyck   v.   Runk,    31    N.  J.   L.   428,  4o2  ; 

V  Wilcncks,  2  John.  1;    Bcddoe  r.  Wads-  Upper  Appomattox  Co.  v.  Hardings,  11 

worth,  21  Wend.    120,    12:5;  Biirnhnm  r.  Gratt.  1. 

Lasselle,  35  Ind.  425  :  Watson  c  Blaine,  ^  Winningham  r.  Crouch,  2  Swan,  170. 

12  Serg.  &  R.  lol,  138;   Kellogg  v.  Malin,  »  Schee  v.  Wiseman,  79  Ind.  389. 

62  Mo.  429;  Grist  r.  Hodges,  3  Dev.  L.  i"  Bovvers  v.  Keesecker,  14  Iowa,  ."01. 

198,  201.  "  Aubuchon  r.  Lory,  23  Mo.  99  ;  Noon 

*  Laberge  r.  McCansland,  3  Mo.  585.  v.   Finnegan,   29   Minn.    418;    Ayers   r. 

5  Halleck  v.  Mixer,  10  Cal.  574,  579.  Dixon,  78  N.  Y.  318,  324  (a  breach  of 

6  Webster  r.  Lowell,  139    Mass.  172;  covenant  after  death). 
Froust  V.  Bruton,  15  Mo.  G19;   Kennerly 


622  TITLE   TO   CHOSES    IN    ACTION.  §  294 

can  bring  no  possessory  action  in  such  case;^  yet  where,  under  the 
statute  or  a  testamentary  provision,  the  executor  or  administrator 
is  put  in  charge  of  the  real  as  well  as  of  the  personal  estate,  any 
action  necessary  to  protect  the  same  against  wrongdoers,  or  to 
recover  damages  for  injuries  thereto,  including  ejectment  for  pos- 
session, must  lie  in  favor  of  such  executor  or  administrator.^  So 
the  action  of  ejectment  is  given  where  land  becomes  assets  for  the 
want  of  sufficient  personalty  to  pay  debts,^  or  under  license  from 
the  probate  court.*  And  on  the  same  principle  an  action  on 
street  assessment  is  maintainable  against  the  executor  or  admin- 
istrator, if  he  is  in  charge  of  the  property  assessed.^ 

§  29-i.  Actions  for  Injuries  to  the  Person.  —  We  have  seen  that 
actions  ex  delicto  for  |)ersonal  injuries  by  or  against  executors  and 
administrators  can  only  be  brought  by  virtue  of  some  statutory 
provision,^  and  it  may  be  profitable  to  notice  the  interpretations 
put  upon  some  of  these  statutes  by  the  courts. 

Thus,  an  action  for  personal  injuries  to  the  deceased  caused  by 

a  defect  in  the  highway  was  held  to  survive  under  the  statute 

of  Maine  giving  actions  of  "  trespass  and  trespass  on 

Injuries  caused  ti--jj_  ^  i 

by  defect  in  the  casc  to  cxccutors  and  administrators  ; '  so  under 
nelaigence^of  the  statutc  of  Massachusctts  mentioning  "  action  of 
public  carrier.  ^pf>gpr,^gg  q^  the  casc  for  damage  to  the  person."  ^ 
Similarly  in  Vermont,^  and  in  case  of  injury  by  reason  of  a  car- 
rier's negligence  in  Illinois,!'^  Iowa,^i  and  North  Carolina.^^  g^t 
actions  for  such  injuries  are  denied  to  the  representatives  of  the 
injured  person  in  Florida,^^  Maryland,^*  and  Missouri ;  ^^   and  in 

1  Brown   v.    Strickland,    32  Me.  174;  6  ^«/e,  §§  290-292. 

Emeric  v.  Penninian,  26  Cal.   119;  Bur-  '^  Hooper  f.  Gorhani,  45  Me.  209. 

dyne  v.  Mackey,  7  Mo.  374  ;  Peck  v.  Hen-  »  Demond  v.  Boston,  7  Gray,  544. 

derson,  7  Yerg.  18.  ^  Eanies  v.  Brattleboro,  54  Vt.  471,  475. 

2  Noon  r.  Finnegan,  32  Minn.  81 ;  Page  i'^  Chicago  &  E.  I.  R  R.  v.  O'Connor, 
r.  Tucker,  54  Cal.  121  ;  Sanchez  v.  Hart,  119  III.  586 ;  Holtdn  v.  Daly,  106  111.  131, 
17  Fla.  507;  Gunter  v.  Fox,  51  Tex.  383,  136.  So  also  in  case  of  injuries  inflicted 
387  ;  Oury  v.  DufReld,  1  Ariz.  509 ;  Gold-  on  plaintiff  by  defendant's  cow,  the  action 
ing  V.  Gofding,  24  Ala.  122,  129  ;  Russell  survives  the  death  of  either  party  :  Wehr 
r.  Erwin,   41    Ala.   292,   302;   Sorrell  v.  r.  Brooks,  21  111.  App.  115. 

Ham,   9   Ga.  55;  Jennings  i-.  Monks,  4  "  Kellow  y.  Central  Railway,  68  Iowa, 

Met.  (Ky.)  103, 105;  Barlage  v.  Railway,  470,  481. 

54   Mich.  564,   569;   Greenleaf  v.  Allen,  ^'^  Peebles  v.  North   Carolina   Co.,   63 

127  Mass.  248.  N.  C.  238. 

3  Carrutliers  v.  Bailey,  3  Ga.  105.  ^^  Jacksonville  Co.  v.  Chappell,  22  Fla. 

4  Burnell  v.  Malony,  36  Vt.  636;  Mc-  616. 

Farland  v.  Stone,  17  Vt.  165.  i*  Baltimore  Co.  v.  Ritchie,  81  Md.  191, 

5  Under    the    statute    of  California  :      198. 

Parker  v.  Bernal,  66  Cal.  113.  ^^  Stanley  v.  Vogel,  9  Mo.  App.  98. 


§  294  ACTIONS    FOR    INJURIES   TO    THE    PERSON.  623 

Wisconsin  it  was  lield  that  so  much  of  an  action  for  damages 
against  a  telegrai)h  company,  for  permitting  its  wires  to  endanger 
the  highway,  as  seeks  to  i-ecover  for  injury  to  the  person,  abates, 
but  so  much  as  is  for  injury  to  property,  and  probably  so  much  as 
is  for  expenses  of  medical  attendance,  etc.,  survives. ^  In  New 
York  the  letting  of  a  house  to  a  tenant,  with  the  knowledge  that  it 
was  in  an  unhealthy  condition,  in  consequence  whereof  the  tenant's 
children  sickened,  and  one  of  them  died,  was  held,  if  actionable 
during  the  lessor's  lifetime,  not  to  survive  against  his  personal 
representative,  being  an  injury  to  the  person.^  In  a  later  case,  a 
father  was  permitted  to  recover  against  the  devisees  of  a  lessor 
for  the  death  of  his  child,  caused  by  injuries  received  upon  a  de- 
fective pier,  then  in  possession  of  the  tenant  under  a  lease  from 
the  deceased  devisor.-^  That  the  action  for  assault  Assault  and 
and  battery  does  not  survive  the  death  of  either  party,  battery, 
and  abates  upon  the  deatli  of  plaintifT,  has  been  decided  in  Ken- 
tucky ,4  North  Carolina,-^  Pennsylvania,^  and  Texas  ; "  but  in  Ten- 
nessee it  was  held  that  by  force  of  the  statute  all  actions  sur- 
vive except  wrongs  alfecting  the  character  of  the  plaintiff,  and 
that  therefore  it  was  not  only  the  right,  but  also  the  duty  of  the 
personal  representative  of  a  plaintiff  in  an  action  for  assault  and 
battery  to  revive  the  suit  after  an  appeal  by  the  defendant ;  ^  and 
such  action  likewise  survives  in  Arkansas,^  lowa,^*'  and,  it  seems, 
in  AVisconsin.il  The  action  for  malicious  prosecution  Malicious  pros- 
survives  in  Vermont  under  the  statute  providing  that  ecution. 
the  death  of  neither  party  shall  defeat  an  action  to  recover  dam- 
ages for  any  bodily  hurt  or  injury,  but  that  the  same  may  be  pros- 
ecuted by  or  against  the  representatives  of  the  deceased  party ;  '^ 
and  likewise  in  Kentucky,  notwithstanding  the  statutory  exception 
that  no  action  shall  survive  for  "  so  much  of  the  action  for  mali- 
cious prosecution  as  is  intended  to  recover  for  tlie  personal  in- 
jury." 13     But  it  is  held  not  to  survive  in  Arkansas,"  California,!^ 

1  Randall  1-.  Northwestern  Co.,  54  Wis.  «  Ward   v.  Blackwood,  41  Ark.  295, 

140,  149.  298. 

-  Victory  v.  Krauss,  41  Mun,  533.  i"  McKinlay  v.  McGregor,  10  Iowa,  111. 

3  Ahcrn  v.  Steele,  48  Ilnn,  517.  i'  Hiner  v.  Fond  du  Lac,  71  Wis.  74,  82. 

*  Anderson  v.  Arnold,  79  Ky.  370.  i-  Whitcomb  v.  Cook,  38  Vt.  477,  481. 

5  Hannah   v.    Knilroad  Co.',  87  N.  C.  "  Hn-gins  v.  Toler,  1  Bush,  192. 

351.  11  Ward  v.  Blackwood,  41  Ark.  295, 299. 

6  Miller  V.  Umbehower,  10  S.  &  K.  31.  i^  Harker  v.  Clark,  57  Cal.  245  (decid- 
'  Harrison  v.  Moseley,  31  Tex.  608.  ing  that  it  does  not  survive  against  the 
»  Kimbrough  v.  Mitchell,  1  Head,  539.  wrongdoer). 


624  TITLE   TO   CHOSES    IN    ACTION.  §  294 

Maryland,^  and  Massachusetts.^    The  action  for  libel  is 

Libel.  J  ■> 

held  not  to  survive  in  Massachusetts,-^  but  otlierwise 
in  Iowa ;  *  so  of  slander,  which  does  not  survive  in 
Georgia,^  Massachusetts,*^  nor  Ohio,'^  but  does  so  in  Iowa  ^  and  in 
Maine.^  In  New  York  it  was  held  that  an  action  of  slander  by  a 
lirm  survives  to  the  living  members  upon  the  death  of  one  of 
thcm.^^  Seduction  is  a  tort  to  the  person,  actionable 
only  to  the  extent  of  the  loss  of  services,  etc.  by  the 
person  entitled  thereto ;  and  is  held  not  to  survive  under  the 
statute  of  North  Carolina,  saving  such  actions  of  trespass  as  are 
not  brought  for  vindictive  damages. ^^  So  held  also  in  Georgia  ^^ 
and  New  York.^^  But  in  Iowa,  under  the  statute  providing  that 
no  cause  of  action  either  ex  delicto  or  ex  contractu  abates  by  the 
death  of  either  party,  if  from  the  "  legal  nature  of  the  case  it  can 
survive,"  it  is  held  that  an  action  of  seduction  commenced  by  the 
injured  party  survives  on  her  death  to  her  administrator.^^  The 
Enticing  away  '"^ctiou  for  cuticing  away  or  harboring  a  servant  is,  in 
a  servant.  Soutli  Carolina,  held  to  be  not  in  assumpsit  on  any 

supposed  promise,  express  or  implied,  but  clearly  ex  delicto,  for  a 
wrong  done,  and  does  not  survive.^^  In  general,  the  action  for 
breach  of  promise  to  marry  does  not  survive  without 
promise  to  allegation  of  special  damages  ;  ^^  but  in  North  Carolina 
marry.  .^  .^  \\Q\di  that  sucli  actiou  survivcs  against  the  ex- 

Divorce.  ecutor  of  the  deceased.^''     As  a  suit  for  divorce  is  a 

personal  action,  the  death  of  either  part}'  before  decree  abates 
the  proceedings,  and  they  cannot  be  continued  against  the  ex- 
ecutor of  the  deceased  husband  to  answer  the  wife's  demand  for 
the  allowance  of  additional  counsel  fees  for  services  rendered 
during  the  husband's  lifetime.^^     It  was  held  in  Massachusetts, 

1  Clark  V.  Carroll,  59  Mel.  180,  182.  "  George  v.  Van   Horn,  9  Barb.  5-23  ; 

2  Nettl.eton  v.  Dineliart,  6  Cusli   543.        People  v.  Tio<ja,  19  Wend.  73. 

■5  Walters  v.  Nettleton,  5  Cash.  544.  "  Sliafer  i'  Grimes,  23  Iowa,  550. 

4  Carson  v.  McFadden,  10  Iowa,  91.  i^  Huff;...  Watkins,  20  S.  C.  477,  480. 

s  Per  Lumpkin,  J.,  in  Brawner  c.  Stcr-  ^'^  So  held  in  Massachusetts:  Smitli  v. 

devant,  9  Ga.  69.  Sherman,  4  Cush.  408,  412;  Stebbins  y. 

6  Walters  v.  Nettleton,  mprn.  Palmer,  1  Pick.  71,  78  ;  Chase  v.  Fitz,  132 

"^  Long  V.  Hitchcock,  3  Oiiio,  274.  Mass.  359.     In  Maine  :  Hovey  v.  Page,  55 

8  Carson  u.  McFadden,  .s)//)ra.  Me.  142.     In  Pennsylvania  .  Lattimore  r. 

9  By  force  of  the  statute  directing  the  Simmons,  13  Serg.  &  P.  183.  New  York' 
survival  of  actions  on  the  case  :  Nutting  Wade  v.  Kalbfleisch,  58  N.  Y.  282.  See 
c.  Goodridge,  46  Me.  82.  imte,  §  291. 

1"  Shale  V.  Schantz,  85  Hun,  022.  i'  Shuler  v.  Millsaps,  71  N.  C.  297. 

11  McClure  v.  Miller,  4  Hawks,  13.3.  is  McCurley  v.  McCurley,  GO  Md.  185. 

1-  Brawner  v.  Sterdevant,  9  Ga.  69. 


§  204  ACTIONS    FOR    INJURIES    TO   THE   PERSON.  625 

that  an  action  survived  to  the  administrator  of  one  whose  death 
was  caused  by  the  negligent  delivery  of  poison  instead 
of  a  harmless  medicine,  under  the  statute  which  pro-     ->  P"*'^ '<=^- 
vides  for  the  survival  of  all  "  actions  of  tort  for  assault,  battery, 
imprisonment,  or  other  damage  to  the  person"  ;^  and  in  Indiana, 
that  a  ])hysician  is  liable  to  the  husband  in  damages  for  malprac- 
tice in  treating  his  wife,  and  if  the  cause  of  action  arise  out  of  a 
breach  of  the  contract  for  skilful  treatment,  it  will  survive  the 
wife's  death; 2  but  no  action  survives  in  whatever  form  against  a 
physician's  executor  for  malpractice,  to  recover  for  injuries  to  the 
person.3    j^  |g  qI^q  \^q\(1  that  such  action  does  not  survive,  in  New 
Hampshire,*  although  it  be  in  form  assumpsit,^  and  in  New  York.^ 
In  Pennsylvania  an  action  against  an  attorney  for  dam- 
ages suffered  in  consequence  of  his  neglect  was  held  neglect. 
not  to  abate  on  the  defendant's  death."     The  action  pg^eitor 
for  deceit  or  fraudulent  representation  is  held  to  sur-  fiauduient 

'■  _    _  rein-useutation. 

vive,  both  to  and  against  executors  and  administrators, 
under  the  statutes  of  New  York,^  Missouri,^  and  North  Carolina  ;  i*^ 
in  Alabama,  the  remedy  is  given  in  such  case  to,  but  not  against, 
the  personal  representative ;  ^^  in  Georgia,  it  is  doubted  whether 
the  remedy  survives  to  the  plaintiff's,  but  is  held  not  to  survive 
against  the  defendant's  cxecutors,^^  while  in  Massachusetts  ^^  and 
Virginia  ^*  it  abates  with  defendant's  death.  In  Missouri,  it  was 
held  that,  where  one  fraudulently  induced  another  to  marry  him, 
he  having  then  a  lawful  wife  living,  an  action  in  assumpsit  lies, 
for  the  value  of  the  labor  performed  by  her  while  believing  she 
was  his  wife,  against  the  wrongdoer's  administrator ;  ^^  but  in 
New  York  it  was  held  that  an  action  for  damages  does  not  sur- 
vive in  such  case.^*" 

It  appears  from  a  previous  statement,^'  that  in  some  instances 

1  Norton  v.  Sewall,  106  Mass.  143.  i''  Arnold  v.  Lanier,  Car.  Law  Rep.  148. 

-  Long  i\  Morrison,  14  Iml.  59o.  ^^  In    analoory    with    the   statute   of   4 

"  Boor  V  Lowrey,  103  Iml.  468.  Edw.  III.  c.  7  :  Coker  i'.  Crozier,  5  Ala. 

*  Vittum  V.  Oilman,  48  N.  H.  416,  369. 

6  Jenkins  v.  French,  58  N.  H  532.  i-  Newsom  r.  Jackson,  20  Ga.  Gl. 

6  Best  V  Vcrlder,  58  How.  Pr.  187.  "  Cuttins   v-   Tower,    14    Gray,   183 ; 

7  Miller  v.  Wilson,  24  Pa.  St.  114,  122.  Read  v.  Hatch,  19  Pick.  47. 

8  Haight  V.  Hayt,  19  N.  Y.  464,467,  "  Henshaw  v.  Miller,  17  How.  (U.  S.) 
474;  so  a  cause  of  action  for  a  conspir-  212,224. 

acy  to  cheat  and  defraud  tlie  intestate  :         ^^  Higgins  v.  Breen,  9  Mo.  497,  500. 
Brackett  v.  GriswoM,  103  N.  Y.  425,  428.  ^<^  Price  v.  Price,  75  N.  Y.  244. 

9  Baker  v.  Crandall,  78  Mo.  584.  ^  Ante,  §  293. 

VOL.  I. —  40 


626  TITLE   TO    CHOSES    IN    ACTION.  §  296 

actions  for  false  rctuin  by  an  officer  have  been  held 

Slisfeasance  or 

iiiaifeasaiice  of  to  survivc,  on  tlic  ground  that  the  plaintiff's  property 
right  was  thereby  violated.  But  in  most  States  such 
or  like  actions  are  held  to  abate  and  not  to  survive  against  or  to 
executors  and  administrators.  Thus  an  action  does  not  lie  against 
or  by  an  executor  or  administrator  for  the  false  return  of  a  sheriff/ 
nor  for  the  nonfeasance  of  a  deputy ,2  or  of  a  constable.^  So  it 
was  held  in  Vermont  that  an  action  against  a  director  of  a  na- 
tional bank  for  neglect  of  duty  abates  at  his  death,  and  cannot  be 
revived  against  his  representatives.*  Actions  against  the  trustees 
or  other  officers  of  a  manufacturing  corporation  for  the  recovery 
of  a  penalty  imposed  by  statute,  for  the  omission  to  report,  or  for 
otherwise  violating  the  law,  does  not  survive  the  death  of  the  de- 
Vioiation  of      fendant,^  or  plaintiff.''    In  Missouri,  the  prosecution  for 

ordinance  of  .,.p 

a  city.  the  Violation  01  a  city  ordinance  abates  by  the  death 

of  the  defendant,  and  cannot  be  revived.'^  And  so  the  rule  that 
Qui  tarn  ac-  1^^  ^**'*  actious  on  penal  statutes  do  not  survive 
t'""s-  prevails  in  the  Federal  courts,  even  in  States  allowing 

violations  of  penal  statutes  to  be  prosecuted  after  the  offender's 
death.^     But  actions  for  the  infringement  of  a  copy- 
infrinj^iny         right  sui'vivc  agaiust  the  represcntati\'e  of  the  offend- 

copvri^lit.  .  ,      Q 

mg  party.*^ 
§  295.  Actions  for  Injuries  resulting  in  Death  do  not  lie  at  Com- 
mon law,  as  already  indicated. ^"^  But  in  England  and  most  of  the 
American  States  actions  are  authorized  by  statute  for  the  wrong- 
ful act,  neglect,  or  default  of  any  person  or  corporation  resulting 
in  the  death  of  the  person  injured.  Such  actions  are  now  given, 
for  instance,  in  Alabama,^^  Arkansas,^^  Connecticut,^'^  California,^'* 

1  Valentine  t'.  Norton,  30  Me.  194, 201 ;  ^  Schreiber  v.  Sharpless,  110  U.  S.  76. 
Barrett  v.  Copeland,  20  Vt.  244.  To  similar  effect,  holding  tliat  the  action 

2  Cravath  i\  Plympton,  13  Mass.  454.  given  to  a  common  informer  to  recover 

3  Logan  >•.  Barclay,  3  Ala.  361  ;  Gent  from  the  owner  of  a  building  in  wliieli 
V.  Gray,  2'.)  Me.  462.  So  the  adminis-  money  was  lost  bj'  gaming,  does  not  sur- 
trator  is  tiie  proper  party  to  sue  for  prop-  vive  against  tiie  representatives  of  the 
erty  exempt  illegally  taken  under  execu-  defendant :  Yarter  r.  Flagg,  143  Mass.  280. 
tion  :  Staggs  v.  Ferguson,  4  Heisk.  600.  9  Atterbury  v.  Gill,  2  Flip.  239. 

4  Witters  v.  Foster,  26  Fed.  Rep.  737.  lO  Ante,  §  290  ;  Connecticut  Co.  v.  New 

5  Stokes  V.  Stiokney,  96  N.  Y.  323;  York  Co.,  25  Conn.  205,  272. 
Diversey    v.   Smith,   103    111.   378,   385;  "  Code,  1886,  §  2-589. 

Mitchell  r.  Hotchkiss,  48  Conn.  9.  i'^  Ljtde  Rock  &  F.   S.  Railway  Co.  v. 

6  Brackett  v.  Griswold,  103  N.  Y.  425.  Townsend,  41  Ark.  382,  387. 

7  Carrollton  v.  Rhomberg,  78  Mo.  547,  i3  Qen.  St.  1888,  §§  1008  et  seq. 
549.  "  Code  Civ.  Pr.  §  377. 


§296 


ACTIONS    FOR    INJURIES    RESULTING    IN   DEATH. 


627 


Delaware/  Georgia,''^  lHinois,'=  Indiana,^  Iowa/'  Kansas/  Ken- 
tucky/ Maine/  Maryland/  Massacliusetts/"  Minnesota/^  Mis- 
souri/2  Nebraska/=^  Nevada/'*  New  Hampshire/^  New  Jersey/^ 
New  York/'  Ohio/«  RJKjde  Island/^  South  Carolina/'^  Texas/i  Ten- 
nessce/2  Vermont/^  Virginia/*  West  Virginia/^  and  Wisconsin^'"' 
In  Maine,  Massachusetts,  and  New  Hampshire,  the  remedy  is  by 
indictment.  In  Michigan,  the  remedy  given  by  statute  2"  against 
municii)al  corporations  for  neglecting  to  keep  highways  and 
l)ridu-es  in  repair,  is  held  to  survive  to  the  personal  representative 
of  the  person  injured  ;  and  if  an  executor  fails  to  bring  an  action, 
the  probate  court  may  appoint  an  administrator  de  bonis  non  to 
do  so,  although  the  executor  has  been  dischargcd.^^ 

The  action  is  in  all  of  these  States  intend(;d  for  the  benefit  of 
the  widow  ;  in  most  of  them  for  the  benefit  of  the  widow,  chil- 
dren, or  next  of  kin,^'-'  or  for  the  widow  and  next  of  kin;3'>  in 
some,  for  the  husband,  widow,  and  heirs ;  ^^  in  others,  if  there 


1  Laws  as  Amended,  1874,  p.  644,  §  2. 

2  Code,  1882,  §  2971. 

3  Rev.  St.  1885,  p.  1290. 

4  Rev.  St.  1888,  §  284. 

5  Code,  §  2520  ;  Worden  v.  Humeston 
R.  R.,  72  Iowa,  201. 

6  Dassler's  Comp.  L.  Tiie  action  lies 
apainst  a  city  for  killinsi  by  a  mob: 
Atchison  o.  Twine,  9  Kans.  8.50. 

~>  Gen.  St.  774,  §  1  ;  777,  §  '?..  In  tliis 
State  the  neglect  must  be  wilful,  "  im- 
plying actual  malice,  or  anti-social  reck- 
lessness" of  such  nature  that  contributory 
negligence  on  tiie  part  of  the  person  in- 
jured is  no  defence  :  Louisville  R.  R.  v. 
McCoy,  81  Ky.  403,  411,  4i;l 

8  R'ev.  St.  1883,  cli.  51,  §  68. 

9  Rev.  Code,  1878,  724,  §§  1-4. 

10  Pub.  St.  1882,  ch.  112,  §  212. 

11  St.  1878,  p.  825,  §  2.  In  this  State  the 
action  lies  against  a  steamboat  by  name 
for  the  wrongful  killing  of  the  adminis- 
trator's intestate  :  Boutiller  v.  Steamboat, 
8  Minn.  97. 

1-2  Rev.  St.  1879,  §  2121. 
J3  Comp.  L.  1887,  p.  3.38. 
"  Gen.  St.  1885,  §  3898. 

15  Rev.  L.  1878,  ch.  282,  §  14. 

16  Rev.  St.  1877,  p.  294,  §  2. 
1"  Code  Civ.  Pr.  §  1902  et  srq. 

IS  Russell  V.  Sunbury,  .37  Oh.  St.  372. 
19  Pub.  St.  1882,  p.  5.53.  §§  15  et  seq. 
21  Rev.  St.  1873,  p.  507,  §  3. 


21  Civ.  St.  1888,  §§  2899-2905. 

22  The  statute  of  Tennessee  provides 
tliat  the  right  of  action  of  a  person  dying 
from  injuries  received,  or  in  consequence 
of  the  wrongful  act  or  omission  of  another, 
sliall  not  abate  or  be  extinguished  by  his 
death,  but  shall  pass  to  his  personal  rep- 
resentative for  the  benefit  of  his  widow 
and  next  of  kin,  free  from  the  claims  of 
creditors  :  Fowlkes  c.  Nashville  Railroad, 
9  Heisk.  829,  8-30.  Tiie  amendment  of 
1871,  giving  the  right  of  action  to  the 
widow,  and  if  none  to  the  children  or  per- 
sonal representatives,  was  held  to  apply 
to  an  action  commenced  before  it  went 
into  effect:  Collins  v.  East  Tennessee 
Railroad,  9  Ileisk.  811. 

23  Rev.  L.  1880,  §  2139. 

24  Code,  1887,  §§  2903  ct  seq. 

25  Code,  1887,  p.  709,  §§  5  et  seq. 

26  Rev.  St.  1878,  §  42.5(5. 

2T  Pub.  Acts,  1887,  p.  345,  Act  264, 
substantially  re-enacting  How.  An.  St. 
§§  1442e/  srq. 

28  Merkle  v.  Township,  35  N.  W.  R. 
846,  852. 

29  So  in  Alabama.  Indiana,  and  Kansas. 
80  In  Arkansas,  Illinois,  Nebraska,  New 

Jersey,  New  York,  and  Vermout. 

31  in  Connecticut,  Kentucky,  Nevada, 
Rhode  Island,  South  Carolina,  Texas, 
and  Wisconsin. 


628  TITLE   TO   CHOSES    IN   ACTION.  §  295 

be  no  widow,  to  cliildrcn,^  or  half  to  the  widow  and  half  to  the 
children,^  or  to  be  distributed  among  wife,  husband,  parent,  and 
child.^  In  some  of  the  States  the  action  may  be  brouglit  by  the 
widow,  husband,  parent,  or  other  person  entitled  to  the  proceeds  ;* 
but  generally  the  suit  is  brought  by  the  personal  representative 
for  the  benefit  of  the  persons  named  in  the  statute,  not  as  rep- 
resenting the  estate  in  such  cases,  but  the  persons  for  whose 
benefit  the  remedy  is  given.^  Hence  the  amount  recovered  is  not 
assets  in  the  hands  of  the  executor  or  administrator  ;  ^  if  the 
persons  for  whose  benefit  the  action  is  authorized  are  not  in 
existence,  the  statutes  of  Virginia  and  West  Virginia  provide 
that  the  amount  recovered  shall  be  assets  ;  but  elsewhere  it  is 
held  that  in  such  case  the  action  does  not  lie."  In  Georgia,  it 
is  held  that  the  husband  has  no  action  for  the  killing  of  his 
wife.s  In  Minnesota,^  New  York,io  and  Ohio,^i  the  statute  is 
construed  as  abating  the  action  by  the  death  of  the  defendant, 
and  that  no  action  survives  against  the  representatives  of  the 
wrongdoer. 

Attention  may  be  called  to  the  distinction  between  statutes 
giving  a  cause  of  action  to  the  representative  for  injuries  suffered 
by  his  intestate  or  testator  during  his  lifetime,  and  such  as  give  an 
action  founded  on  his  death,  or  on  the  damages  resulting  from  his 
death  to  the  widow,  next  of  kin,  or  other  person  in  whose  favor 
the  action  is  given. i-  The  measure  of  damages  is  furnished  in  the 
former  case  by  the  loss  and  suffering  of  the  deceased  party  caused 
bv  the  injury  up  to  the  time  of  his  death ;  while  in  the  latter  case 
death  is  the  cause  of  action,  and  the  damages  are  measured  by 
the  loss  to  the  person  in  whose  interest  the  action  is  brought  in 
consequence  of  such  death. ^^     In  some  of  the  States,  the  amount 

1  Georgia.  ^  Russell  v.  Sunbury,  37  Oh.  St.  372, 

2  New  Hampshire.  376. 

3  Virginia  and  West  Virginia.  *  Georgia  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Winn,  42  Ga. 
*  For  instance,  in  Kentucky  and  Mis-  331. 

go^jri_  9  Green  v.  Thompson,  26  Minn.  500. 

5  Hicks  V.  Barnett,  40  Ala.  291 ;  Little  ^^  Hegerich  v.  Keddie,  99  N.  Y.  2.58, 
Rock  Railway  v.  Townsend.  41  Ark.  382,  overruling  Yertore  v.  Wiswall,  16  How. 
387  ;  Perry   v.  St.  Joseph   Railroad  Co.,  Tr.  8. 

29  Kans.  420,  422 ;  Baker  v.  Railroad,  91  "  Russell  v.  Sunbury,  37   Oh.  St.  372, 

N.  C.  308.  376. 

6  See  authorities  in  preceding  note.  ^'^  Such  statutes  are  frequently  found 
But  the  administrator  is  hable  for  the  mis-  coexisting  :  see  for  instance  Rev.  St.  Mo. 
application  of  such  funds  to  the  parties  §§2121,2122. 

for  whose  benefit  the  suit  was  brought:         '^  NgpfHij^m   j,.   Grand  Trunk  Co.,  38 
Perry  v.  Carmichael,  95  111.  519,  530.  Vt.  294,  302. 


§  295  ACTIONS    FOR   INJURIES    RESULTING   IN    DEATH.  G29 

recoverable  for  tlie  death  of  a  person  is  determined  \>y  statute,^ 
or  not  to  exceed  a  maxinmni  stated.^  It  is  also  held  that  the 
common  law  doctrine  of  merger  of  a  civil  action  in  a  felony  docs 
not  apply .^  Under  a  statute  of  Connecticut  providing  that  "  ac- 
tions for  injuries  to  the  person,  whether  the  same  do  or  do  not 
result  in  death,  shall  survive  to  the  executor  or  administrator,"  it 
was  doubted  whether  an  action  can  be  maintained  for  instanta- 
neous killing ;  but  where  the  death  is  not  instantaneous,  punitive 
damages  may  be  recovered.*  In  Tennessee,  whose  statute  does 
not  distinguish  between  the  cause  of  action  given  to  the  party  in- 
jured, or  his  representatives,  and  that  given  to  those  who  were 
damaged  by  his  death,  it  is  held  that  damages  may  be  awarded 
not  only  for  the  mental  and  bodily  suffering,  expenses,  and  loss  of 
time  resulting  to  the  deceased,  but  also  for  the  loss  and  depriva- 
tion resulting  to  the  parties  for  whose  benefit  the  right  of  action 
survives.*^ 

It  may  be  noticed,  also,  that  an  action  against  husband  and 
wife  for  the  wife's  wrong  abates  with  her  death.^ 

The  authorities  are  conflicting  on  the  question  whether  statutes 
creating  this  right  of  action  have  extra-territorial  validity.  It  is 
well  recognized  that  penal  statutes  will  not  be  enforced  beyond 
the  limits  of  the  State  having  enacted  them,'  but  that  "  when- 
ever, by  either  the  common  law  or  the  statute  law  of  a  State,  a 
right  of  action  has  become  fixed  and  a  legal  liability  incurred, 
that  liability  may  be  enforced  and  the  right  of  action  pursued  in 
any  court  which  has  jurisdiction  of  such  matters,  and  can  obtain 
jurisdiction  of  the  parties."  ^  Hence,  where  a  statute  gives  a  right 
of  action  to  a  personal  representative  for  the  death  of  the  intestate, 
an  administrator  appointed  in  another  State  is  held  entitled  to 
maintain  the  action  in  such  State.^     But,  on  the  other  hand,  it  is 

1  For  instance,  in  Missouri,  tlie  only  v.  East  Tennessee  Railroad,  9  Heisk. 
amount  that  can  be  recovered  is  Su.OOO,     841,  850. 

neither  more  nor  less  :  Rev.  St.  §  2121.  ''  Roberts  r.  Liscnbce,  8G  N.  C.  136. 

2  As  in  Virginia,  where  it  cannot  ex-  "  Ilerrick  c.  Minneapolis  R.  R.  Co., 
ceed  $10,000:  Code,  1887,  §  2903;  same     31  Minn.  11,  13. 

in  West  Virginia  :   Code,  1887,  p.709,  §  6.  ^  Dennick  ;•.  R.  R.  Co  ,  103  U.   S.  11, 

3  Lankford  r.  Barrett,  29  Ala.  700.  18;  Stoeckman  v.  Terre  Haute  R.  R.  Co., 

4  Murphy  v.  New  York  R.  R.  Co.,  29  15  Mo.  App.  503,  506  ;  Boycc  v.  Wabash 
Conn.  496.  R.  R.  Co.,  63  Iowa,  70,  72  ;  Burns  r.  Grand 

6  Nashville  Railroad  ;•.  Prince,  2  Hei.«k.  R.  R.  Co  ,  15  N.  East.  (Ind. )  230,  231. 
580,  587   (overruling  Louisville   Railroad  ^  Dennick  ?•.  R.  R.  Co.,  xupra  ;  Herrick 

r.  Burke,  6  Coldvv.  45,  49),  ai)proved  in  v.  I\Iinneapolis  R.  R.  Co.,  31  Minn.  11.15; 

later  cases,  notably  in  that  of  Collins  Selma  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Lacey,  49  Ga.  100,  111. 


630  TITLE  TO   CHOSES   IN   ACTION.  §  296 

held  that  an  administrator  cannot  maintain  an  action  under  the 
statute  of  another  State  authorizing  an  action  hy  the  personal 
representative  of  one  who  came  to  his  death  by  the  default  of 
another ;  ^  nor  in  the  State  giving  the  action,  if  the  injury  was 
c-ommitted  elsewhere.^  But  in  States  recognizing  the  authority  of 
foreign  administrators  to  sue,  a  foreign  administrator  may  main- 
tain such  an  action  in  the  State  where  the  injury  occurred  and 
the  right  of  action  exists.^  It  is  sometimes  emphasized  that  such 
statutes  only  of  other  States  will  be  enforced  as  are  not  against 
the  policy  of  the  State  in  which  the  remedy  is  sought  ;  and  that 
the  similarity  or  coincidence  of  statutes  in  tlie  two  States  is  in- 
dicative of  the  coincidence  of  their  policy.*  So,  although  a  for- 
eign administrator  may  in  general  maintain  a  suit  in  a  State 
recognizing  the  authority  of  foreign  administrators,  yet  he  will 
not  be  permitted  to  maintain  an  action  for  injuries  resulting  in 
death,  if  he  has  not  the  authority  to  bring  such  action  in  the  State 
under  which  he  holds  his  appointment.^ 

§  296.    Property  conveyed  by  Decedent  in  Fraud  of  Creditors.  — 

At  common  law  and  under  English  statutes*^  the  transfer  of  prop- 

,     r        erty  in  fraud  of  the  rights  of  creditors  is  void  as  to 

Transfer  of  •'  *= 

property  in  them,  but  o;ood  and  binding  between  the  parties  there- 
fraud  of  cred-  L,  ..,.,,.,.,, 

iters  valid  be-  to.  The  Same  pmiciple  IS  embodied  m  the  American 
ties,^butv(ud'^as  statutcs,  from  whicli  it  follows  that,  as  the  representa- 
to  creditors.  ^j^,^  ^^  ^  dccedcnt,  the  executor  or  administrator  can- 
not impeach  the  conveyance  of  his  testator  or  intestate  on  the 
ground  of  fraud."  But  the  personal  representative  is  also  the 
Executors  and  representative  of  the  creditors  ;  hence,  although  he  is 
maytVme'  ncvcr  allowcd  to  recover  the  property  from  the  fraud- 
states  recover    uient  grantee  for  the  benefit  of  the  heir  or  devisee, 

from  fraudu-  "  ' 

1  Woodard  i'.  Michigan  R.  R.  Co.,  10  *  Chicago  R.  R.  Co.  ;;.  Doyle,  60  Miss. 
Oh.  St.  121;  Richardson  v.  New  York  977,  983;  Leonard  v.  Columbia  Co.,  84 
Central  R.  R.  Co.,  98  Mass.  85,  92  ;  N.  Y.  48,  52 ;  Morris  v.  Chicago  R.  R.  Co., 
McCarthy  v.  Cliicago  R.  R.  Co.,  18  Kans.  65  Iowa,  727,  731 ;  Railway  Co.  v.  Rich- 
46 ;  Taylori".  Pennsylvania  R.  R.  Co.,  78  ards,  68  Tex.  375,  378;  Vawter  v. 
Ky.  .348.  Missouri   R.   R.   Co.,   84  Mo.   679,  684; 

2  Whitford  v.  Panama  R.  R.  Co.,  23  Burns  r.  Grand  R.  R.  Co.,  15  N.  East.  R. 
N.  Y.  465,  467  ;  Needham  v.  Grand  Trunk  (Ind. )  230. 

R.   R.   Co.,   38   Vt.   294,   310;  Hover  r.  »  Limekiller  v.   Hannibal  R.  R.  Co., 

Pennsylvania  Co.,  25  Oh.  St.  667.  83  Kans.  83,  88. 

3  Kansas   Pac.   R.   Co.   v.   Cutter,  16  6  Particularly  13  Eliz.  c.  5. 

Kans.   568;   Jeffersonville  R.  R.   Co.   v.  '  Bump  on  Fraud.  Conv.,  ch.  16.     See 

Hendricks,  41  Ind.  48,  72  ;  Hartford  R.  R.  collection  of  authorities  on  this  point, 
Co.  V.  Andrews,  36  Conn.  213.  p.  445  (od  ed.). 


PROPERTY   CONVEYED   IN    FRAUD. 


631 


§  296 

because  they  arc  e<iually  boiiiid  with  the  grantor,  yet  [^'^J^jJ^'^J'^*^ '" 
he  may  consistently  do  so  in  favor  of  creditors  of  an  creditors. 
insolvent  estate.     Provision  is  therefore  made  by  statute,  in  some 
of  the  States,  enabling  executors  and  administrators  of  insolvent 
estates  to  recover  property  fraudulently  conveyed  by  their  testators 
or  intestates,  and  the  property  so  recovered  becomes  assets  for  the 
payment  of  debts;  and  in  some  States  it  is  so  held  in  the  absence 
of  a  statute  to  that  effect.     It  is,  accordingly,  held  that  the  per- 
sonal representative  may  recover  property  fraudulently  conveyed 
by  the  decedent,  if  it  be  necessary  to  pay  his  debts,  in  California,^ 
Connecticut,^  Indiana,^  Iowa,*  LDaisiana,^  Mainc,*^  Massachusetts," 
Michigan,^  Minnesota,^  Nebraska,io  New  Hampshire,!^  Xew  York,i2 
North    Carolina,i3    Pennsylvania,"    Vermont,!^   ^nd   Wisconsin,!^ 
principally  upon  the  theory  that  in  insolvent  estates  the  adminis- 
trator represents  the  creditor.     But  in  other  States  But  not  in 
the  creditor  is  driven  for  his  remedy  to  a  court  of  ''''""■^' 
chancery,  because  the  executor  or  administrator  is  not  permitted 
to  assail  or  impeach  the  acts  of  his  testator  or  intestate.     It  is 
so   held  in  Alabama,^"  Arkansas,!^  Florida,!^  Georgia,^^   Illinois,^! 


1  Forde  v.  Exempt  Fire  Co.,  50  Cal. 
299,  302. 

2  Andruss  r.  Doolittle,  11  Conn.  28,3, 
287;  Minor  r.  Mead,  3  Conn.  2f<9 ;  Booth 
V.  Patrick,  8  Conn.  1C6  ;  PVeeman  v.  Burn- 
ham,  36  Conn.  469  ;  Bassett  r.  McKenna, 
62  Conn.  437. 

»  llev.  St.  Ind.  1881,  §  2334  ;  Martin 
V.  Bolton,  75  Ind.  29.5. 

*  Cooley  V.  Brown,  30  Iowa,  470. 

s  Sullice  V.  Gradenigo,  15  La.  An.  582  ; 
Judson  V.  Connolly,  4  La.  An.  Il39. 

6  McLean  r.  Weeks,  61  Me.  277,  280  ; 
Brown  v.  Whitmore,  71  i\Ie.  65  ;  Frost 
V.  Libby,  79  Me.  50. 

'  Martin  v.  Root,  17  Mass.  222,  228 ; 
Holland  v.  Cruft,  20  Pick.  .321,  328;  Ciiase 
I'.  Redding,  13  Gray,  418 ;  Welsh  v.  Welsh, 
105  Mass.  229  ;  Drinkwater  v.  Drink- 
water,  4  Mass.  354  ;  Yeomans  v.  Brown, 
8  Met.  (Mass.)  51,  56. 

8  How.  St.  1882,  §  5884. 

9  St.  1878,  p.  584,  §§  15,  17. 
w  St.  1887,  ch.  23,  §§211-213. 

11  Cross  V.  Brown,  51  N.  H.  486  ; 
Abbott  V.  Tenney,  18  N.  H.  109;  Preston 
V.  Cutter,  13  Atl.  874,  879. 

1'^  McKnight  i'.  Morgan,  2  Barb.  171  ; 
Bate  V.  Graham,  11  N.  Y.  237,  240,  242  ; 


Brownell  v.  Curtis,  10  Pai.  210,  218  ; 
Lichtenberg  v.  Herditelder,  103  N.  Y.  302, 
306;  Harvey  c.  McDonnell,  48  Hun,  409. 

13  Code,  1883.  §§  1446,  1447. 

1^  Stewart  v.  Kearney,  6  Watts,  453; 
Pringle  v.  Pringie,  59  Va.  St.  281 ;  Bous- 
lough  V.  Bouslougli,  68  Pa.  St.  49.5,  499. 

15  McLane  v.  Johnson,  43  Vt.  48,  60. 
Before  the  statute  to  this  effect,  the  ad- 
ministrator's autliority  was  denied  :  Peas- 
lee  V.  Barney,  1  Chip.  331,  334;  Martin 
r.  Martin,  1  Vt.  91,  95. 

iG  Rev.  St.  1878,  §  3832.  As  soon  as  the 
administrator  is  satisfied  of  the  fact  that 
there  is  a  deficiency  of  assets,  it  is  his 
duty  to  bring  an  action  to  recover  prop- 
erty fraudulently  conveyed,  even  before 
the  exact  amount  is  ascertained  :  Andrew 
I'.  Hinderman,  71  Wis.  148,  150. 

1"  Marler  i-.  Marler.  6  Ala.  367  ;  Walton 
V.  Bonliam,  24  Ala.  513;  Davis  i'.  Swan- 
son,  54  Ala.  277. 

18  Eubanks  v.  Dohbs,  4  Ark.  173. 

19  HoUiday  v.  McKinne.  22  Fla.  153, 
168,  176. 

25  Beale  >:  Hall,  22  Ga.  431,  4-57. 

21  Harmon  v.  Harmon.  63  111.  512  ; 
Eads  r.  Mason.  16  111.  App.  545,  548; 
White  V.  Russell,  79  111.  155. 


632 


TITLE   TO    CHOSES   IN   ACTION. 


§  296 


Kentucky,^  Maryland,^  Mississippi,^  Missouri,*  North  Carolina,^ 
Oliio,^  Rhode  Island,"  South  Carolina,^  Tennessee,^  Texas,^*^  and 
Virginia.^^ 

Tiie  proceeds  of  property  so  recovered,  whether  on  suit  by  a 
creditor  or  by  the  executor  or  administrator,  become  assets  for 
Proceeds  be-  the  payment  of  debts  only.'^  In  an  early  case  the  ex- 
c(.me  assets         ^g    ^^.^^  the  amount  necessary  to  pay  the  debts  was 

lor  payment  oi  .;  r    ^^ 

debts  only.  j^eld  to  be  distributable  to  the  next  of  kin  or  legatees, 
as  an  incident  to  the  administration ;  ^^  but  the  true  rule  is  to 
Excess  will  restorc  such  excess  to  the  fraudulent  grantee,^*  because 
be  restored  to     ^jj^  fraudulent  convevancc  is  good  between  the  parties 

fraudulent  ^  o  i 

grantee.  thereto  and  their  representatives,  binding  all  persons 

but  creditors. ^^ 


1  Commonwealth  v.  Richardson,  8  B. 
Men.  81,  93. 

•^  Kinnemon  v.  Miller,  2  Md.  Ch.  407  ; 
Dorsey  v.  Sniithson,  6  Har.  &  J.  61,  63. 

3  Armstrong  r.  Stovall,  26  Miss.  275, 
277  ;  Winn  v.  Barnett,  31  Miss.  653,  659  ; 
Blake  v.  Blake,  53  Miss.  182,  193. 

4  McLaughlin  v.  McLaughlin,  16  Mo. 
242  ,  Brown  c  Finley,  18  Mo.  375 ;  George 
V.  Williamson,  26  Mo.  190. 

6  Coltraine  v.  Causey,  3  Ired.  Eq.  246. 
Subsequent  to  this  case  a  statute  author- 
ized the  recovery  by  an  administrator  of 
all  property  fraudulently  conveyed,  and 
such  real  estate  as  descends  at  law  to  the 
heirs,  and  only  such  as  would  have  been 
liable  to  execution  or  attachment  by  a 
creditor  of  the  grantor  in  his  lifetime. 
It  was  held  under  this  statute,  that  lands 
which  a  debtor  paid  for  and  caused  to  he 
conveyed  to  his  son,  to  defeat  his  creditors, 
could  not  after  his  death  be  recovered  by 
his  administrator .  Rhem  v.  TuU,  13 
Ired.  L.  57. 

•i  Benjamin  v.  Le  Baron,  15  Oh.  517 
(Birchard,  J.  dissenting).  In  this  State 
the  statute  provides  that  the  petition  to 
sell  lands  to  pay  debts  of  the  estate  "  shall 
include  all  the  deceased  may  have  con- 
veyed with  intent  to  defraud  creditors"; 
but  the  action  for  the  recovery  thereof 
must  be  in  the  court  of  common  pleas  : 
Spoors  V.  Coen,  44  Oli.  St.  497. 

7  Estes  V.  Rowland,  15  R.  L  127. 

8  King  V.  Clarke,  2  Hill,  (S.  C.)  Ch. 61 1 ; 
Chappell  V.  Brown,  1  Bai.  -528,  531 ;  An- 
derson V.  Belcher,  1  Hill,  (S.  C.)  L.  246, 
248.     But  in  this  State,  as  in  some  others. 


the  administrator  may  be  made  a  party 
to  a  proceeding  in  equity  at  the  suit  of 
creditors,  and  the  property  will  be  re- 
covered and  distributed  to  creditors  by 
the  chancery  court :  Thomson  v.  Palmer, 
2  Rich.  Eq.  .32.  But  it  seems  that  where 
tiie  administrator  is  himself  a  creditor  he 
may  imi)each  a  conveyance  by  his  intes 
tate :  Winsmith  v.  Winsmith,  15  S.  C 
611,  Werts  v.  Spearman,  22  S.  C.  200^ 
215. 

8  Lassiter    v.   Cole,   8   Humph.   621 
Sharp  V.  Caldwell,  7  Humph.  415  ;  Moody 
I'.  Fry,  3  Humph.  567.     But  contra     Marr 
V.  Rucker,  1  Humph.  348. 

1'  The  decisions  in  this  State  are  not 
pointed..  Connell  v.  Chandler,  13  Tex.  5, 
("obb  !'.  Norwood,  11  Tex.  556,  Avery 
r.  Avery,  12  Tex.  54,  57,  and  Willis  v. 
Smith,  65  Tex.  656,  658,  deny  the  power 
of  the  administrator  to  recover  ;  while  it 
is  intimated  that  the  administrator  is  the 
proper  party  to  sue  to  set  aside  tlie  fraudu- 
lent conveyance  for  the  benefit  of  cred- 
itors in  Danzey  v.  Smith,  4  Tex.  411,  and 
Hunt  V.  Butterworth,  21  Tex.  133,  141. 

11  Backhouse  v.  Jett,  1  Brock.  500,  507; 
Thomas  v.  Soper,  5  Munf.  28. 

12  Danzy  v.  Smith,  supra;  Lee  v.  Chase, 
58  Me.  432,  436  ;  Cross  v.  Brown,  51  N.  H. 
486,  488;  Welsh  v.  Welsh,  105  Mass.  229. 

13  Martin  v.  Root,  17  Mass.  222,  228. 

i-i  McLean  v.  Weeks,  61  Me.  277,  280 ; 
Bank  of  United  States  v.  Burke,  4  Blackf. 
141,  14.3. 

15  Burtch  V.  Elliott,  3  Tnd.  99;  Ro- 
chelle  V.  Harrison,  8  Port.  351. 


§  298  APPRENTICES   AND   SERVANTS.  633 

In  Indiana,  if  such  })ropcrty  is  recovered  l)y  a  creditor  in  a 
court  of  chancery,  lie  has  a  prior  cUiini  thereon  for  the  payment 
of  his  debt.i 

§  207.    Annuities  and  Rent  Charges.  —  An    annuity  IS   defined   to 
be  a  yearly  payment  of  a  certain  sum  of  money  granted  to  another 
for  life,  or  for  a  term  of  years,  and  charged  upon  the  Annuity  as  per- 
pcrson  of  the  grantor  only.     When  charged  upon  real  1^^^!^^;.'^^,^ 
estate,  it  is  most  commonly  called  a  rent  charge.-     As  i-e"tative; 
personal  property,  an  annuity  passes  to  the  personal  representa- 
tive ;  hut  if  granted  with  tvords  of  inheritance  it  is  rent  charge  to 
descendible  and  goes  to  the  heir,  to  the  exclusion  of  ^'"^  '""'• 
the   executor.3     The   ai)portionability  of  annuities  is  mentioned 
elsewhere.* 

Dividends  upon  shares  in  a  corporation  bequeathed  to  the  tes- 
tator's widow  for  life,  declared  after  her  death  for  a  period  which 
expired  during  her  life,  are  included  in  the  bequest, 

i  o  '  _  i  _  Dividends. 

and  her  executor  may  recover  them.^     This  subject, 
so  far  as  the  same  affects  the  relative  rights  of  legatees  for  life 
and  remaindermen  ^  in  stock  dividends,'  is  discussed  in  connec- 
tion with  the  satisfaction  of  legacies  by  the  executor. 

§  298.  Apprentices  and  Servants,  —  Upon  the  death  of  a  master, 
both  his  servants  and  apprentices  are  discharged,  and  sg^vantsand 
therefore  the  executor  or  administrator  of  the  former  apprentices 

are  discliarged 

can  hrincf  no  action  to  enforce  the  contract  of  service  by  the  master's 

.  death 

after  his  death  ;  nor  do  they  take  any  interest  in  an 
apprentice  bound  to  the  deceased,^  unless  the  infant,  with  the 
consent  of  the  father,  had  bound  himself  by  inden-  unless  they 
tare  to  a  tradesman,  his  executors  and  administrators,  themse'i'ves  to 
such  executors  or  administrators  carrying  on  the  same  ""LXre^and 
trade  or  business.^    In  Vermont  it  is  held  that  the  in-  administrators, 

and  these  carry 

denture  of  apprenticeship  is  not  necessarily  avoided  on  the  trade. ' 
by  the  death  of  the  master,  but  becomes  voidable  merely  ;  and  if 

1  Bank  of  United  States  r.  Burke,  supra.  *  Post,  §§  301,  459. 

-  Abb.  Law  Diet.,  tit.  Annuity.  ^  Johnson    v.   Bridfjewater    Manufac- 

8  As  where   a  testator   j.;ave   his   real  turing  Coniyiany,  14  Graj-,  'J74. 

and  personal  estate  to  liis  wife,  subject  to  ''  Po^t,  §  45(3. 

an  annuity  of  £50  to  A.  ^.forever;  it  was  ^  Post,  §  457. 

lield  that,  for  the  want  of  the  word  heirs  ^  Wms.    Ex.    [813,  814]  ;  3  Redf.    on 

in  the  gift,  the  annuity  passed,  on  the  Wills,  287,  pi.  38. 

death  of  A.  B.,  to  his  personal  representa-  '•'  Wms.   Ex.    [816],  citing   Cooper  v. 

tives:  Taylor  v.  Martindale,  12  Sim.  1-58;  Simmons,  7  H.  &  N.  707. 

Parsons  r.  Parsons,  L.  R.  8  Eq.  Cas.  260. 


634  TITLE   TO   CnCSES   IN   ACTION.  §  299 

the  apprentice  serve  the  administrator  of  the  deceased  master, 
he  acquires  the  riglits  and  incurs  the  duties  of  an  apprentice  to 
him.^ 

§  299.  Copyrights  and  Patents.  —  The  right  of  an  author  to  the 
exclusive  sale  or  use  of  his  intellectual  productions,  including 
books,  maps,  charts,  pamphlets,  magazines,  engravings,  prints, 
dramatic  and  musical  compositions,  paintings,  drawings,  yjhoto- 
graphs,  sculpture,  models,  busts,  and  designs,  and  the  right  of 
inventors  originating  any  new  and  useful  art,  machine,  manufac- 
ture, or  composition  of  matter,  or  any  new  and  useful  improve- 
ment therein,  are  species  of  property  unknown  at  common  law,  and 
of  purely  statutory  origin,  both  in  England  and  America.  For 
.  ^^^  the  encouragement  and  development  of  learning  and 
patents  are,  in  literature,  and  to  promote  the  progress  of  useful  arts 
sonai  property  and  scicnccs,  Cougrcss  has  secured  to  the  author  or 
executo°or^  inveutor  the  absolute  and  indefeasible  interest  and 
administrator.  pj.Qpgj.^y  jj^  iijg  literary  production,  or  the  subject  of 
his  invention,  for  a  specified  time,  which,  upon  certain  conditions, 
may  be  extended  for  a  further  term  of  years.  During  this  period 
the  law  has  impressed  upon  these  productions  all  the  qualities  and 
characteristics  of  property,  has  enabled  the  author  or  inventor  to 
hold  and  deal  with  the  same  as  property  of  any  other  descrip- 
tion, and  on  his  death  it  passes,  with  the  rest  of  his  personal 
estate,  to  his  legal  representatives,  becoming  part  of  his  assets.^ 
The  patent  may  be  applied  for  and  obtained  by  tlie  executor  or  ad- 
ministrator, and  is  vested  in  him,  in  trust  for  the  heirs  or  devisees, 
"  in  as  full  and  ample  a  manner,  and  under  the  same  conditions, 
limitations,  and  restrictions,  as  the  same  was  held,  or  might  have 
been  claimed  or  enjoyed,  by  the  inventor  in  his  or  her  lifetime."  ^ 
It  is  obvious,  that  an  extension  of  the  term  of  letters  patent  and 
copyright  may  likewise  be  granted  to  and  held  by  the  personal 
representatives  ;  *  and  in  such  case  the  assignee  of  the  patentee 
under  the  original  patent  acquires  no  right  under  the  extended 
patent,  unless  such  right  be  expressly  conveyed  to  him  by  the 
patentee.^      The  right  of  personal  representatives  to  sell  or  as- 

1  Plielps  V.  Culver,  6  Vt.  430.  Brooks  v.  Bicknell,  3  McLean,  250 ;  also 

2  Wilson  V.  Rousseau,  4  How.  (U.  S.)     432. 

646,  674;  Dudley  y.  Mayhew,  3  N.  Y.  9.  ^  Wood  worth    v.    Sherman,    3    Story, 

3  Curtis's    Law    of    Patents,    §   177  ;     171 ;  Wilson  v.  Rousseau,  suj)ra,  McLean 
Stimpson  r.  Rogers,  4  Blatclif.  333.  and    Woodbury,  JJ.,  dissenting,  holding 

*  Washburn  v.  Gould,  3  Story,  122;     that  the  e.xtensiou  would  enure  to  those 


§  299  COPYRIGHTS   AND   PATENTS.  635 

sig-n  a  copvridit  or  patent  follows  from  its  qiuility  as         . 

D  I  „      o  1  1      Administrator 

property,  and  may  be  made  by  one  of  two  or  more  ad-  mav  ^eii  or 
ministrators.i    Action  for  infringement  of  a  patent  may  rig ilt  or  patent, 
be  brouglit  by  the  administrator,  and  where  a  moiety  ^^.^i^j^f^j^t^r 
has  been  assigned  bv  the  patentee  he  may  sue,  in  con-  ma.vsuef.,r 
junction  with  the  surviving  assignee;-^  and  he  may  oc  patent  or 
commence   his  action  in    the    United    States    Circuit  ''"''-"'°'- 
Court  of  another  State  without  qualifying  as  administrator  in  such 
State ;  and  the  same  right  extends  to  the  assignee  of  the  admin- 
istrator.3     Where,  in  a  suit  for  the  infringement  of  a  patent  right, 
the  defendant  dies  before  the  granting  of  a  decree,  a  bill  of  revivor 
may  be  filed  against  the  decedent's  personal  representative* 

The  analogous  subject  of  trade-marks  is  governed  by  similar 
principles,  and  the  authority  of  personal  representa-  ^j.^j^_^^^^j.g 
tives  with  reference  thereto  is  much  the  same  as  with 
reference  to  copyrights  and  patents.^  Paxson,  J.,  passing  upon 
the  question  of  the  right  of  heirs  or  distributees  to  use  the  trade- 
mark of  the  ancestor,^  says  that,  while  the  cases  are  not  uniform 
on  this  subject,  there  is  ample  and  recent  authority  that  a  business 
and  accompanying  trade-mark  may  pass  from  parent  to  children 
without  administration  ;  and  that  the  business  may  be  divided 
among  the  children,  and  each  will  have  the  right  to  the  trade- 
mark to  the  exclusion  of  all  the  w^orld  except  the  co-heirs.  He 
quotes  from  the  opinion  of  Lord  Cranworth,'  who  argued  that, 
when  a  manufacturer  dies,  those  who  succeed  him  (grandchildren 
or  married  daughters,  for  instance),  though  not  bearing  the  same 
name,  yet  ordinarily  use  the  original  name  as  a  trade-mark,  and 
will  be  protected  against  infringement  of  the  exclusive  right  to 
that  mark,  because,  according  to  the  usages  of  trade,  they  would 
be  understood  as  meaning,  by  the  use  of  their  grandfather's  or 
father's  name,  no  more  than  that  they  were  carrying  on  the  man- 
ufacture formerly  carried  on  by  him.  So  Field,  J.,  in  Kidd  v. 
Johnson,  100  U.  S.  617,  620.s 

assignees  who  had  by  express  agreement         *  Kirk  v.  Dii  Bois,  28  Fed.  Rep.  460. 
secured  an  intorest  in  the  extension.  '"•  Browne  on   Trade-Marks,  §  365,  1st 

1  Winterniute  v.  l^edington,  1   Fishor,  ed. 
239;  Brooks  v.  Bicknell,  supra,  438;  I'itts  ^  Pratt's  Appeal.  117  Pa.  St.  401,  413. 

V.  Jameson,  15  Barb.  310,  316.  "  Leather  Cloth  Co.  v.  American  Co., 

-  Story,  J.,   arfiuendn,  in  Whittemore  11  H.  L.  523,  534. 
V.  Cutter,  1  Gall.  429,  431.  ^  The  reason  why  a  trade-mark  may 

*  Smith  I'.    Mercer,  3  Pa.  Law  Jour,  pass  "  without   administration,"  as  sug- 

Rep.  52U,  583  (b.  p.  448).  gestcd  by  Paxson,  J.,  supra,  seems  to  be 


636  TITLE  TO   CHOSES   IN   ACTION.  §  300 

§  300.  Rents.  —  The  general  rule  is.  that  rents  accruing  after 
the  deceased  owner's  death  belong  to  the  heirs  or  devisees,  as  an 
Rents  accruing  incident  to  the  ownership  of  the  land  which  descends 
owuer'rdeatii  ^^  them.^  Accordiug  to  this  principle,  the  payment 
go  to  heirs.  Qf  j-eut  to  au  cxccutor  or  administrator  under  a  lease 
from  him  after  the  testator's  or  intestate's  deatli  is  no  dischai-ge 
as  against  the  lieirs,'"^  and  may  be  recovered  by  them  even  if  the 
estate  is  insolvent,  unless  there  has  been  some  action  to  subject 
the  land  to  the  power  of  the  executor  or  administrator.^  The  right 
of  the  heirs  attaches  to  rents  accruing  under  a  leasehold  extending 
beyond  the  lessor's  life,  if  there  be  a  reversion  to  himself  and 
his  heirs  ;*  but  if  a  lessee  for  years  make  an  underlease,  reserving 
rent,  such  rent  accruing  after  his  death  goes  to  the  executor  or 
administrator,  because  his  estate  was  but  a  chattel  interest.^ 

But  if  the  real  estate  is  necessary  to  pay  the  debts  of  the  de- 
,  ,    ceased,  the  executor  or  administrator  may  be  ordered 

Unless  needed  ' 

to  pay  debts  to  take  posscssion  of  it  and  collect  the  rents  thereirom, 
and,  if  these  are  insufficient,  to  sell  the  same,*^  or  even 
take  possession  thereof  without  the  order  of  court.'^  It  will  appear 
hereafter,  in  connection  with  the  subject  of  the  duties  of  exec- 
utors   and  administrators  in   respect   of  real   estate,^  that  in  a 

that  a  trade-mark  can  have  no  value  ex-  taken  for  a  railroad  :   Boynton  v.  Peter- 

cept  in   connection  with  the  business  to  borough  Company,  4  Cush.  407  ;  Camp- 

which   it  attaches  ;  and  as  creditors  are  bell  v.  Johnston,  1  Sandf.  Ch.  148 ;  and  to 

not  usually   in    condition  to   realize  the  damages  for  cutting  down  trees  :    Fuller 

value  of  tlie  trade-mark,  either  by  carry-  r.  Young,  10  Me.  365,  372;  Smith  v.  Bland, 

ing  on  the  business  themselves  or  by  sell-  7  B.  Mon.  '21. 

ing  to  one  who  will,  its  chief   element  as  *  Stinson    v.    Stinson,    38   Me.    593 ; 
an  asset  is  wanting.     But  it  seems,  also,  Foltz  r.  Prouse,  17   111.  487,493;   Blood- 
that  cases  may  arise  in  which  the  trade-  worth  v.  Stevens,  51  Miss.  475. 
mark  of  a  deceased  testator  or  mtestate          ^  Wras.  Ex.  [818j,  3  Redf.  on  Wills, 
is  of  value  to  creditors,  or  a  subject  of  183,  pi.  8. 

contention  between  heirs,  when  adminis-  **  On    this    subject,   see   post,   §§   463 

tration  may  become  necessary.  et  seq.,  treating  of    the    liability   of  real 

1  See  post,  §  513  ;  Ball  v.  First  National  estate  for  the  debts  of  deceased  persons. 
Bank,  80  Ky.  501,  503,  and  earlier  cases  '  "  If  the  estate  is  insolvent,  and  set- 
cited  ;  McClead  v.  Davis,  83  Ind.  2G3 ;  tied  m  the  insolvent  course,  it  is  the 
Stewart  v.  Smiley,  46  Ark.  373;  Crane  duty  of  the  administrator  to  take  pos- 
V.  Guthrie,  47  Iowa,  542,  545  ;  Shouse  v.  session  of  it,  take  care  of  it,  and  take  the 
Krusor,  24  Mo.  App.  279.  rents  and  profits  "  :    Lucy   v.   Lucy,    55 

2  Haslage  v.  Krugh,  25  Pa.  St.  97.  N.  H.  9, 10;  Bergin  a  McFarland,  26  N.H. 

3  Kimball  v.  Sumner,  62  Me.  305 ;  533,  536.  The  law  in  most  other  States, 
Tow-le  V.  Swasey,  106  Mass.  100  ;  Gibson  however,  requires  some  order  of  the  pro- 
V.  Farley,  16  Mass.  280 ;  Clift  v.  Moses,  bate  court  to  divest  the  heirs  of  the  right 
44  Hun,  312,  314.     The  same    principle  of  possession. 

is  applicable  to  the  damages  due  for  land  "  Post,  §  337. 


S  301  LIFE   TENANT   AND   REMAINDERMAN.  637 

number  of  States   the  distinction    between   real   and  Except  in 

personal  property  has  been  abolished,  so  that  both  <;o  Ji|^\^,fi'';ate 

to  tlie  personal  representative  for  administration.     In  '^^[^^l]^^^^!',^^. 

such  States  the  rents  self-evidcntly  go  to  the  executor  or  aciminis- 

,       .  ,  •     1      I-      1      •    •    i.      i.'  trator. 

or  administrator  during  the  period  of  administration. 

'It  is  also  clear,  that,  where  the  real  estate  is  devised  to  an  execu- 
tor for  purposes  of  administration,  the  rents  must  be  paid  to  the 
person  administering.^ 

Rents  which  had  accrued  prior  to  the  death  of  the  testator  or 
intestate  are  mere  choses  in  action,  and  therefore  payable  to  the 
personal  representative.^ 

§  801.  Apportionment  between  Life  Tenant  and  Remainderman. — 
If  a  lessor  make  a  lease  of  land  of  whicli  he  owns  part  in  fee  and 
part  for  a  term  of  years,  reserving  one  entire  rent  for  the  whole, 
the  rent  accruing  after  his  death  will  be  apportioned  between  the 
heir  and  the  executor.^  But  at  common  law  there  j^^  j^p^^rt ion- 
could  be  no  apportionment  of  rent  accruing  to  succcs-  ment  of  rent 

^  '  •  r  1        between  guc- 

sive  owners,  so  that,  if  a  life  tenant  died  before  the  cessive  owners 

,  -1      1       1  •       1  1  at  common  law. 

rent  reserved  under  a  lease  made  by  him  became  due, 
the  rent  was  lost  both  to  his  executor  and  to  the  reversioner  ;  —  to 
the  former,  because  no  rent  had  become  due  to  the  testator  when 
he  died  ;  to  the  latter,  because  he  was  not  the  lessor  of  the  tenant.* 
To  remedy  this  difficulty,  the  statute  of  11  Geo.  11.  c.  19,  §  15,  was 
enacted,  providing  that  where  any  tenant  for  life  died  before  the 
time  at  which  rent  reserved  under  a  demise  from  him,  determin- 
ing with  his  death,  became  due,  the  executor  or  administrator  of 
the  lessor  might  recover  from  the  under-tenant  the  proportion  of 
rent  which  had  accrued  at  the  time  of  the  lessor's  death.'^  Similar 
statutes  exist  in  many  of  the  American  States,  referring  generally, 
like  the  British  statute,  to  leases  from  life  tenants,  expiring  with 
the  life  of  the  lessor.  Where  the  lease  is  by  a  tenant  in  fee,  or 
in  any  case  where  it  is  binding  upon  the  heir  or  person  entitled  in 
remainder,  the  lessee  is  bound  to  pay  the  rent,  the  whole  of  which 
wull  then  go  to  the  heir  or  remainderman,  no  matter  how  much 

1  Glacius  V.  Fogel,  88  N.  Y.  434,  444  ;  Loq;an  v.  Caldwell,  2-']  Mo.  372 ;  Ball  r. 
as  where  bv  the  will  he  is  charged  with     First  National  Bank,  80  Ky.  501. 

the  collection  of  all  rents:  McDowell  v.  3  3  Hgdf.  on  Wills,  183,  pi.  9;  Wms. 

Hendrix,  71  Ind.  286.  Ex.  [818],  citing  English  authorities. 

2  McDowell  V.   Hendrix,  67  Ind.  513,  *  Wms.  Ex.  [821],  with  authorities. 
617  ;    King   v.    Anderson,   20   Ind.    385  ;  ^  Stillwell  v.  Doughty,  3  Bradf.  359. 


638 


TITLE   TO   CHOSES    IN    ACTION. 


§  302 


of  it  was  earned  before  his  estate  took  effect  in  possession. ^  The 
Nor  of  same  rule  with  reference  to  apportionment  applies  to 

annuities,  annuities ;  they  are  not  in  their  nature  apportionable 

gTven  foT  main-  either  in  law  or  equity ,2  excej)t  annuities  for  the  main- 
teuame  of         tcnancc  of  the  widow,  or  married  women  livin*:;  apart 

widow  ov  minor  _  '        _     ^  .4. 

chiiaiei).  from  their  husbands,  or  infants.^     But  there  is  a  dis- 

tinction to  be  drawn  between  an  annuity,  no  part  of  which  is  pay- 
AiUer  as  to  ^^^Ic  uulcss  the  annuitant  live  until  it  becomes  due, 
interest.  r,^^^^  ^-j-^g  accruing  interest  upon  a  given  sum  producing 

an  income,  in  which  case  the  beneficiary  is  entitled  to  all  the 
interest  earned  at  the  time  of  his  death.*  This  subject  is  also 
regulated  by  statute  in  several  States,^  and  will  again  be  referred 
to  in  connection  with  satisfaction  of  legacies. 

§  302.    The  Wife's  Choses  in  Action.  —  At  common  law,  mar- 
riage is  a  qualified  gift  to  the  husband  of  the  wife's  choses  in 
action,  upon  condition  that  he  reduce  them  to  yjosses- 

Wifes  choses  '      ^  t  r  i  •         -r 

in  action  siiv-      gjon  during  its  continuance.    If  he  die  before  his  wife, 

Vive  to  her,  if  .  ,         ,   ,        .  t  -i  ^  •      •    l 

tee  husband       Without  liaviug  rcduccd  such  property  into  possession, 


1  3  Redf.  on  Wills,  184,  pi.  12  ;  Fay  v. 
Holloran,  ."5  Barb.  295;  Sohier  v.  El- 
dredge,  103  Mass.  345,  351  ;  Bloodvvorth 
V.  Stevens,  51  Miss.  475.  But  where  a 
lessee  under  a  life  tenant  pays  tlie  rent  to 
the  representative  of  the  life  tenant  for  a 
period  subsequent  to  the  lessor's  death, 
the  reversioners  may  recover  therefor  : 
Price  V.  Pickett,  21  Ala.  741. 

2  Wms.  Ex.  [835]  ;  Tracy  v.  Strong,  2 
Conn.  659,  064:  Waring  w.  Purcell,  1  Hill, 
(S.  C.)  Cli.  193,  199;  Wiggin  v  Swett, 
6  Met.  (Mass.)  194,  201  ;  McLemore  v. 
Blocker,  Harp.  Eq.  272,  275  ;  Manning  v. 
Randolpli,  4  N.  J.  L.  144;  Heizer  ;•.  Heizcr, 
71  Ind.  526;  and  see  autliorities  cited 
post,  §  459. 

3  Gheen  v.  Osborn,  17  Serg.  &  R.  171  ; 
Fisher  v.  Fisher,  5  Pa.  L.  J.  Rep.  178 ; 
Ex  parte  Rutledge,  Harp.  Cli.  65  ;  Gould, 
J.,  in  Tracy  v.  Strong,  supra  ;  Blight  r. 
Blight,  51  Pa  St.  420  ;  Earp's  Appeal,  28 
Pa  St.  368,  374;  see  authorities  cited 
post,  §  459. 

*  Because  interest  becomes  due  de  die 
in  diem. :  Story  Eq.  Jtirisp.  §  480,  note, 
(p.  469  of  r2th  ed.).  As  there  is  no  diffi- 
culty in  making  apportionment,  there  is  no 


necessity  for  the  rule  :  Earp's  Appeal, 
supra;  and  so  it  has  been  held  that,  where 
no  period  or  day  has  been  mentioned 
upon  wliich  the  annuity  should  be  paid, 
the  rule  that  annuities  cannot  be  ap- 
portioned is  not  applicable :  Reed  v. 
Cruikshank,  46  Hun.  219.  But  dividends 
from  profits  on  business  of  incorporated 
companies  are  not  only  contingent,  but 
uncertain  in  amount  until  the  expiration 
of  tiie  full  period  for  which  they  are  de- 
clared, and  are  not  apportionable  :  Gran- 
ger V.  Bassett,  98  Mass.  462,  469 ;  Foote, 
Appellant,  22  Pick.  299;  Sweigart  v. 
Berk,  8  S.  &  R.  299,  302. 

5  In  Massachusetts  it  was  held  that, 
under  the  statute  of  that  State,  where  a 
testator  had  directed  a  residue  in  trust 
to  be  sold  and  invested  in  a  particular 
security,  the  income  to  be  paid  as  an 
annuity  to  his  son's  widow  during  her 
life  and  on  her  death  to  provide  for  her 
children,  the  life  tenant  was  entitled  to 
the  proceeds  of  coupons  of  bonds  repre- 
senting the  fund  maturing  after  the  tes- 
tator's death  ;  and  upon  tiie  death  of  the 
life  tenant,  the  interest  was  to  be  appor- 
tioned :  Sargent  v.  Sargent,  103  Mass.  297. 


§302 


THE   wife's   CHOSES   IN   ACTION. 


G39 


she,  and  not  his  executors  or  administrators,  will  bo  J;^^.,^';^;,*;:;^':''^ 
entitled  to  it.^  There  is  a  distiMcti(ni,  however,  in  session. 
some  of  the  States  at  least,  between  choses  in  action  which  accrued 
to  the  wife  before,  and  those  which  accrued  to  her  durin.L^  cover- 
ture; for  the  latter,  the  husband  may  brin^  action  in  his  own 
name,  disagree  to  the  interest  of  his  wife,  and  a  recovery  thereon 
in  his  own  name  is  suthcient  to  defeat  the  wife's  survivorship.^ 


1  Hair  V.  Avery,  28  Ala.  2G7,  273; 
Rice  V.  MoRcynol.Is,  8  Lea,  3(5;  Lock- 
liart  ?•.  Cameron,  29  Ala.  :>.J5 ;  Moody  v. 
llcmpliill,  75  Ala.  2*38;  Andover  v.  Mer- 
rimack Co.,  S7  N.  II.  437,  444;  Burr  v. 
Sherwood.  3  Bradf.  85 ;  Arnold  v.  Rug- 
gles,  1  R.  I.  1G5,  178 ;  Bell  v.  Bell,  1  Ga. 
G37  ;  Killcrease  v.  Killcrease,  7  How. 
(xMiss.)  311 ;  Barber  v.  Slade,  30  Vt.  lUl  ; 
Stephens  v.  Beal,  4  Ga.  319,  323  ;  Ster- 
ling V.  Sims,  72  Ga.  51 ;  Weeks  r.  Weeks, 
5  Ired.  Eq.  Ill,  120;  Lenderman  r.  Len- 
dcrman,  1  Hoiist.  523  ;  Baker  v.  Red,  4 
Dana.  158;  Willis  r.  Roberts,  48  Me.  257, 
2U1  ;  Kellar  v.  Beelor,  5  T.  15.  Monr.  573 ; 
Whitehurst  v.  Barker,  2  Ired.  Eq.  292; 
Goodwin  V.  Moore,  4  Humph.  221  ;  Wal- 
den  V.  Chambers,  7  Oh.  St.  30  ;  Bone 
r.  Sparrow,  11  La.  An.  185 ;  Pinkard  c. 
Smitii,  Little's  Sel.  Cas  331;  Rogers  v. 
Bumpass,  4  Ired.  Eq.  385. 

2  Boozer  v.  Addison,  2  Rich.  Eq.  273. 
In  Connecticut  it  is  held,  as  the  settled 
law  of  the  State,  that  a  chose  in  action 
accruing  to  the  wife  during  coverture 
vests  absolutely  in  the  husband  :  Fourth 
Ecclesiastical  Society  r.  Matlier,  15  Conn. 
587,  598,  reciting  numerous  autliorities. 
In  Massachusetts  the  decisions  are  con- 
flicting ;  the  cases  of  Albee  v.  Carpenter, 
12  Cush.  382,  Commonwealth  v.  Manley, 
12  Pick.  173,  Giiddard  v.  Johnson,  \\ 
Pick.  352,  and  Hapgood  ?>.  Ilougliton,  22 
Pick.  480,  distinctly  holding,  the  first  two 
tliat  a  cliose  in  action  accruing  to  the 
wife  during  coverture  vests  absolutely  in 
the  husband,  the  other  two  that  he  may 
bring  suit  thereon  in  his  own  n.ime  aPor 
her  death;  while  in  Hay  ward  c.  Hay  ward, 
20  Pick.  517,  which  seems  to  liave  been 
well  argued  and  thoroughly  considered, 
it  is  deliberately  announced  that,  if  the 
liusband  die  before  reducing  into  posses- 
sion a  chose  in  action  accruing  to  the  wife 
during  coverture,  it  survives  to  the  wife. 


In  Maine,  Willis  v.  Roberts,  48  Me.  257, 
Maryland,  Pond  v.  Conway,  11  Md. 
512,  Rhoile  Island,  Wilder  v.  Aldrich, 
2  U.  I.  518,  and  Tennessee,  Cox  v.  Scott, 
9  Ba.xt.  305,  310,  it  is  expressly  held 
that  such  choses  survive  to  the  wife,  if 
the  husband  die  before  reducing  them  to 
possession.  In  Delaware  it  was  so  de- 
cided, although  the  husband  had  made 
an  equitable  assignment  of  his  wife's 
chose,  but  died  before  it  was  reduced  to 
possession:  Stale  r.  Robertson,  5  Harr. 
201.  In  New  York  a  distinction  was 
taken  between  an  acti(m  which  must  be 
brought  in  the  name  of  the  husband  and 
wife,  which,  unless  the  husband  obtained 
satisfaction,  would  survive  to  the  wife, 
and  one  which  the  husband  might  bring 
in  his  own  name;  and  it  was  held  that 
taking  a  new  security,  or  novating  the 
debt  to  the  wife  in  his  own  name,  author- 
ized him  to  bring  suit  thereon  in  his  own 
name,  and  destroyed  the  wife's  right  of 
survivorship :  Searing  ;■.  Searing,  9  Pai. 
283.  Where  a  suit  for  the  wife's  choses 
in  action  is  brought  in  chancery,  it  is  ne- 
cessary to  join  the  wife,  and  the  court 
will  then  see  that  the  husband  make  a 
suitable  provision  for  the  wife,  unless  she 
consents  to  waive  it :  Schuyler  v.  Hoyle, 
5  Johns.  Ch.  196,210,  reviewing  the  Eng- 
lisli  authorities.  So  in  Missouri :  Pickett 
I'.  Everett,  11  Mo.  568  ;  and  in  this  State  it 
is  held  that  in  a  suit  for  choses  accruing 
to  the  wife  during  coverture  the  husband 
may  at  his  election  join  his  wife  or  not; 
and  if  he  sues  alone  and  recovers  judg- 
ment, it  is  an  election  to  have  the  chattel 
in  his  own  right  freed  from  the  riglit  of 
survivorship  in  the  wife  ;  if  he  joins  her 
in  the  suit,  her  right  of  survivorship  will 
continue  :  Leakey  r.  Maupin,  10  Mo.  368, 
372,  In  Ohio,  choses  in  acti(m  belonging 
to  the  wife  at  the  time  of  the  marriage, 
not  reduced  into  possession  by  means  of 


G40  TITLE   TO   CHOSES    IN    ACTION.  §  302 

What  amounts  to  a  reduction  into  possession  by  the  husband  is  a 
question  of  much  nicety  and  difficulty,  upon  which  the  authorities 
are  by  no  means  precise,  nor  the  rules  in  the  several  States  uni- 
The  mere  in-  form.^  The  mere  intention,  without  some  act  divest- 
lulsband  isifot  i^^o  ^lie  wifc's  right  and  malcing  his  own  absolute, — 
ve^Thewiie'^s'  ^^cli  as  a  judgment  recovered  in  an  action  com- 
ownership.  mcnced  by  him  in  his  own  name  alone,  or  an  award 
of  execution  to  him  upon  a  judgment  recovered  by  him  and  his 
wife,  or  the  receipt  of  the  money,  or  decree  for  payment  to  him  or 
for  his  use,  —  is  not  sufficient  to  defeat  her  survivorship.^  It  has 
He  may  sell  been  held  that  he  may  sell  or  assign  her  choses  for  a 
vafuabiTcon-  valuable  consideration,  and  thus  defeat  her  right,^  al- 
sideration.  though  the  choscs  assigucd  be  no  further  reduced  to 
possession  during  coverture ;  *  but  he  cannot  make  a  voluntary 
assignment  or  gift  of  them  witliout  consideration,  unless  the 
assignment  or  gift  be  consummated  by  actual  reduction  during 
V  1  1  t-ik  coverture.^  So  the  assignment  of  the  wife's  choses  as 
place  of  the        a  Collateral  for  the  husband's  debt  simply  puts  the 

husband,  and  .  .  ,  .      ,  »    .        ,  „ 

must  reduce  to  assigiiec  in  the  liusbaud's  place;  it  is  not  of  itself  a 
fwThusband's  reduction  into  possession,  and  if  the  husband  die  be- 
death.  £^^,g  anything  further  is  done,  neither  the  assignee 

nor  the  husband's  personal  representatives  have  any  further  inter- 
est therein.^  An  assignment  by  an  insolvent  husband  for  the 
benefit  of  his  creditors,  under  the  insolvent  law,  will  defeat  her 
right,  although  he  die  before  her;^  but  a  general  assignment, 
without  referring  to  the  wife's  choses  in  action,  does  not  include 

a  judgment  obtained  during  coverture  in  self";  O'Conner  v.  Harris,  81  N.  C.  279, 

the  husband's  name  alone,  or  by  assign-  282. 

nient  for  a  valuable  consideration,  or  by  *  Browning  i'.  Headley,  2  Rob.  (Va.) 

taking  new  securities  in  his  name  alone,  340. 

survive   to  the  wife,  and   on   her  death  ^  Hartman  v.  Dowdel,  1  Eawle,  279, 

before   the   husband's   go  to   her  heirs :  281 ;  Siter's  Case,  4  Rawle,  468. 

Dixon  V.  Dixon,  18  Ohio  R.  113.  ^  Hartman  v.  Dowdel,  supra;    Latou- 

1  Chitty  on  Contr.  225;  Snowhill  v.  rette  r.  Williams,  1  Barb.  9;  Croft  f.  Bol- 
Snowhill,  2  N.  J.  Eq.  30,  36.  ton,  31  IVIo.  355. 

2  Brown  v.  Bokee,  53  Md.  155,  169.  '^  Ricluvine  v.  Heim,  1  Pa.  Rep.  378  ; 

3  Hill  I'.  Townsend,  24  Texas,  575 ;  Shuman  v.  Reigart,  7  W.  &  S.  108.  But 
Abington  v.  Travis,  15  Mo.  240.  "  The  in  New  York  tiie  creditors  in  such  case 
assignment  availed  to  pass  the  right  take  subject  to  the  wife's  right  by  sur- 
to  the  assignee  to  collect  and  have  the  vivorship  if  the  husband  dies  before  the 
proceeds  as  his  absolute  property,  if  col-  assignee  has  reduced  such  property  to 
lected  during  the  coverture,  just  as  possession  :  Van  Epps  v.  Van  Deusen,  4 
the  husband  might  have  done  if  he  had  Pai.  64,  73 ;  and  see  Williams  v.  Sloan, 
kept,  and  reduced  it  into  possession  him-  i7ifra. 


§  302 


THE   wife's   CHOSES    IN    ACTION. 


641 


them,  nor  is  the  assignee  of  a  bankrupt  under  the  bankrupt  act 
entitled  to  them,  tlie  rule  of  the  common  law  being  that  creditors 
cannot  compel  the  husband  to  exercise  his  power  in  their  favor. ^ 
Tiic  assertion  of  title  to  the  wife's  chose  in  action  by  a  bequest  in 
the  husband's  will  cannot  affect  rights  which  she  had  otherwise 
been  permitted  to  retain  ;2  so  the  mere  manual  pos-  ^^^^^  ^^^^^^^ 
session  of  a  note  or  other  chose  in  action  payable  to  fj'^^^'^'^il^:"  jj^* 
the  wife,  is  not  sufficient  to  constitute  a  reduction  by  not  constitute 

.  „   ,         .    I   .     Q  reduction. 

the  husband  so  as  to  divest  the  wife  s  right  ;'^  nor 
holding  it  as  administrator,  before  final  distribution.''  But  where 
the  husband  is  the  executor  of  a  will  under  which  the  wife  is 
entitled  to  a  legacy,  taking  it  and  mingling  it  with  his  other  prop- 
erty is  a  reduction  of  it  to  possession  such  as  bars  her  right 
thereto.^  So,  where  the  husband  receives  the  legacy  from  the 
executor,  receipting  for  it  in  his  wife's  name  and  using  the  money 
as  his  own,*^  the  possession  must  come  to  the  husband  in  the  ex- 
ercise of  his  marital  right,  and  for  the  purpose  of  appropriating  it 
to  his  own  use.^  An  assignment  by  the  husband  of  a  reversionary 
interest  expectant  on  the  death  of  a  tenant  for  life  is  not  valid 
against  the  wife,  if  both  she  and  the  life  tenant  survive  the  hus- 
band.^    Nor  is  a  contract  made  between  husband  and  wife  during 


1  Gibson,  C.  J.,  in  Shay  v.  Sessaman, 
10  Pa.  St.  432,  433;  State  v.  Robertson, 
5  Harr.  201 ;  Timbers  v.  Katz,  6  W.  &  S. 
290,  298,  299;  Terry  v.  Wilson,  63  Mo. 
493,  499 ;  Williams  v.  Sloan,  75  Va.  137. 

2  Grebill's  Appeal,  87  Pa.  St.  105,  108. 
8  Latourette  i'.  Williams,  supra;  Burr 

V.  Sherwood,  3  Bradf.  85.  So  the  posses- 
sion by  a  husband  of  his  wife's  distribu- 
tive share  of  her  father's  estate,  where 
the  executor  has  not  qualified,  does 
not  constitute  an  exorcise  of  his  marital 
right,  the  title  being  in  the  executor ;  and 
on  the  husband's  death  the  title  to  the 
property  survives  in  the  wife :  Hairston 
V.  Hairston,  2  .Jones  Eq.  123,  127. 

*  Johnson  v.  Brady.  24  Ga.  131,  136; 
Crawford  v.  Brady,  35  Ga.  18t,  192; 
Walker  v.  Walker,  25  Mo.  367.  So  an 
administrator,  liaving  in  his  hands  the 
distributive  share  of  an  estate  belonging 
to  a  married  woman,  who  is  summoned  as 
trustee  in  an  action  against  her  husband, 
will  be  discharged  if  the  husband  die  be- 
fore judgment :  Strong  i'.  Smith,  1  Met. 
(Mass.)  476. 

VOL.  I.  —  41 


5  Bridgman  r.  Bridgman,1.38  Mass.  58. 

«  Kice  I'.  McReynolds,  8  Lea,  36. 

"  Tennison  v.  Tennison,  46  Mo.  77.  If 
he  take  them  as  trustee  for  the  wife, 
creditors  of  the  husband  cannot  subject 
them  to  the  payment  of  their  debts : 
Terry  v.  Wilson,  supra.  So  where  a  wife 
collects  insurance  money  on  her  house, 
and  reinvests  it  in  real  estate,  her  husband 
assenting  to  her  control  and  disposition 
of  the  money  :  Cox  v.  Scott,  9  Baxt.  .305. 

8  Because  the  defeasance  of  the  wife's 
right  by  survivorship  depends  upon  the 
actual  conversion  by  the  husband  during 
coverture,  and  this  is  impossible  of  an 
interest  which  exists  only  in  expectancy. 
See  a  thorough  discussion  of  tliis  question 
by  Kyhind,  J.,  in  Wood  v.  Simmons,  20 
Mo.  363,  in  which  tlie  view  of  Sir  Thomas 
Plumer,  Master  of  the  Rolls,  in  Purdew 
V.  .Jackson,  1  Russ.  Cli.  1,  is  quoted  with 
approval,  viz.  :  that  all  assignments  by 
the  husband  of  the  wife's  choses  in  action 
pass  them  sub  modo,  on  condition  that  the 
assignee  receive  his  sliare,  or  its  value, 
during  the  life  of  the  husband.    Moore  v. 


642  TITLE   TO   CHOSES   IN   ACTION.  §  302 

coverture,  disposing  of  the  wife's  expectancies,  binding  on  the 
wife  after  the  husband's  death.^  And  an  agreement  made  before 
marriage,  stipuhiting  that  the  wife's  equities  and  expectancies 
should  be  settled  on  her,  will  be  regarded  as  constituting  a  trust 
in  the  husband,  which  will  prevent  his  marital  rights  from  ever 
attaching.^  Where  the  husband  survives  the  wife,  he  is  entitled 
to  administer  on  her  estate,^  and,  as  such  administrator,  to  all  her 
personal  estate  remaining  in  action  or  unrecovered  at  her  death ; 
but  if  he  die  before  obtaining  a  grant  of  administra- 
istrator^/eXms  tiou,  or,  having  taken  letters,  before  all  her  property 
To  he^cwfrn  in  action  is  reduced  to  possession,  such  property  does 
th'fr^resfema-  ^ot  go  to  his  representatives,  but  administration,  gen- 
tives  of  the        g^j^j  qj,  ^^  bonis  710)1,  must  be  obtained  on  her  estate 

nusbaiid  who  i  -f   5 

died  i>efnre        for  that  purposc  ;  *  and  in  such  case  the  wiie  s  repre- 

completiiiff  ad-  ,,,,  ,.,         ,    i-       jii        i         n 

ministration  on  scutativcs  hold  the  property  m  trust  for  the  husband  s 
her  estate.         ^^^^  ^^  j^.^  ^^.  legatees,^  subjcct,  of   course,  to  the 

wife's  debts.^  But  it  is  to  be  remembered,  that  recent  legislation 
in  most  of  the  States  has  greatly  changed  the  law  with  reference 
to  the  property  rights  of  married  women,'  and  that  in  many  cases 
choses  in  action  of  the  wife  not  reduced  by  the  husband  during 
her  lifetime  now  go,  upon  her  death,  to  her  next  of  kin,  in  the 
same  manner  as  if  she  had  been  a  feme  sole.^ 

Tliornton,  7  Gratt.  99,  110;  Browning  v.  Speers   Eq.  5G4  ;    Hendren  v.  Colgin,  4 

Headly,  supra  ;  and  if  in  such  case  the  Munf.  231,  234 ;   Lee  v.  Wlieeler,  4  Ga. 

wife  die  before  the  life  tenant,  her  inter-  541 ;  Rice  v.  Thompson,  14  B.  Monr.  877  ; 

est  will  pass  to  her  children  :  Matheney  Templeman  v.  Fontleroy,  3  Rand.  434, 

V.  Guess,  2  Hill,  (S.  C.)  Ch.  63.  439;   Olmsted  v.  Keyes,  85   N.  Y.  593, 

1  Hardin  v.  Smith,  7  B.  Monr.  390,  6(r2 ;  Robins  v.  McClure,  100  N.  Y.  328, 
392.  But  a  post-nuptial  settlement  upon  834;  Brown  v.  Bokee,  53  Md.  155,  163; 
the  wife,  if  not  fraudulent,  is  good  in  lier  Glasgow  v.  Sands,  3  G.  &  J.  96, 103.  And 
favor:  Picquet  v.  Swan,  4  Mason,  443;  the  administrator  may  maintain  trover 
Duffy  V.  Insurance  Co.,  8  W.  &  S.  413.  for  their  conversion  :   Brown  v.  Bokee, 

2  Ramsay   v.  Richardson,    Riley,   Ch.  supra. 

271,273.  Ante-nuptial  contracts  intended  °  Bryan  v.  Rooks,  25  Ga.  622  ;  Stew- 
to  regulate  and  control  the  interest  wliicli  art  v.  Stewart,  7  Johns.  Ch.  229,  246  ; 
each  of  the  parties  to  the  marriage  shall  Hunter  v.  Hallett,  supra  ;  Donnington  v. 
take  in  the  property  of  the  other  during  Mitchell,  2  N.  J.  Eq.  243.  If  the  husband 
coverture  or  after  death,  will  be  enforced  intermeddles  without  taking  letters  of 
according  to  the  intention  of  the  oarties  :  administration,  he  will  be  held  liable  for 
Johnston  v.  Spicer,  107  N.  Y.  186;  Ijes-  her  debts.  Lockwood  v.  Stockholm,  11 
nover  v.  Jordan,  27  Minn.  295.  Pai.  87. 

'a  Atite,  §  236.  ^  Clay  v.  Irvine,  4  W.  &  S.  232  ;  Lock- 

4  Allen  ?'.  Wilkins,  3  Allen,  321 ;  Bur-  wood  r.  Stockholm,  supra. 
leigh  V.  Coffin,  22  N.  H.  118,  125;  Curry  ^  See  ante,  §  286. 

V.  Fulkinson,  14  Ohio  R.  100;  Hunter  v.  ^  Holmes  r.  Holmes,  28  Vt.  765;  Div      , 

Hallett,  1  Edw.  Ch.  388  ;  Cobb  v.  Brown,  v.  Dixon,  18  Ohio  R.  113.  ,•' 


§  303     ACTIONS  ACCRUING  TO  PERSONAL  REPRESENTATIVE.      643 

§  303.  Actions  accruing  to  the  Personal  Representative.  —  It 
results  from  the  ownership  oi  all  personal  property  of  a  deceased 
person,  which  by  law  is  i)hiced  in  the  executor  or  ad-  cause  of  action 
ministrator,  that  for  any  injury  thereto  occurring  after  deaul^Kh-eTthe 
the  decedent's  death,  and  before  the  final  disposition  J^j.^;;,',^;^ .'J^^,. 
to  the  parties  entitled,  the  action  must  be  brought  ttntaiive. 
by  the  personal  representative.^  And  in  such  case,  as  well  as  in 
all  eases  where  the  action  accrues  upon  a  contract  made  by  or 
with  him  as  such  since  the  death  of  the  testator  or  intestate,  the 
action  may  be  brought  in  the  proper  name  of  the  executor  or 
administrator,  but  not  as  such.^  But  whenever  the  ^j^^^^  ^^^ 
money  when  recovered  will  be  assets,  the  executor  or  amount  recov- 

•'  '  .         ered  will  be  as- 

administrator  may  sustain  a  suit  in  his  representative  sets,  the  action 

o  1     •    .  ,     c  •  1     r  xi        ^'^  '"  '"^  repre- 

capacity,"*  and  join  a  count  lor  conversion  before  the  sentative 
death,  and  one  for  damages  after.*  He  cannot,  how-  ^  ^'^^^  ^^' 
ever,  join  counts  on  causes  of  action  accruing  to  him  in  his  private 
right  as  individual,  with  counts  on  causes  of  action  in  his  repre- 
sentative capacity.^  Under  what  circumstances  executors  and 
administrators  may  be  liable  personally  for  their  contracts  is 
mentioned  elsewhere.^ 


1  Holbrook  (,•.  Wliite,  13  Wend.  591. 

■^  Stewart  v.  lliciiey,  17  N.  J.  L.  164  ; 
Ham  V.  Henderson,  50  Cal.  8(37  ;  Patclien 
v.  Wilson,  4  Hill,  (N.  Y.)  57  ;  Manwell  v. 
Briggs,  17  Vt.  176  ;  Haskell  v.  Bo  wen,  44 
Vt.  579  ;  White  v.  Pulley,  '27  Fed.  Kep. 
430,  440 ;  McDonald  v.  Williams,  16  Ark. 
36;  Yarborough  v.  Ward,  34  Ark.  204, 
208;  Carlisle  v.  Burley,  3  Me.  250;  Tre- 
cothick  V.  Austin,  4  Mas.  16,  34 ;  Catlin 
V.  Underhill,  4  McLean,  337  ;  Campbell  v. 


Baldwin,  6  Blackf.  364  ;  Schmittler  v. 
Simon,  101  N.  Y.  554;  Wait  v.  Holt,  58 
N.  H.  407  ;  Daily  v.  Daily,  66  Ala.  266. 

^  Boggs  V.  Bard,  2  Rawlc,  102;  Brown 
V.  Lewis,  9  R.  I.  497  ;  Evans  v.  Gordon, 
8  Porter,  346 ;  Yarborough  v.  Ward,  34 
Ark.  204,  208. 

*  French  v.  Merrill,  6  N.  H.  465. 

5  French  i\  Merrill,  supra;  Epes  v. 
Dudley,  5  Rand.  437. 

6  See  post,  §  356. 


END    OF   VOLUWK   T. 


(i\L 


(jU 


^,^S^ 


UC  SOUTHERN  REGIONAL  LIBRARY  FACIUTY 


AA    000  820  397    8 


